Stanton Manor

We found the following examples of good practice.

The home was clean and domestic staff were visible around the home.

People were admitted to the service safely. Individuals risk assessments were in place to consider the impact of COVID-19 on individual health conditions.

Staff were up to date with infection, prevention and control (IPC) training and we observed good IPC practice throughout the inspection.

Staff and people using the service participated in the testing programme.

People using the service were supported to receive regular visits from family and friends.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service met the characteristics of good with outstanding in caring.

People received extremely caring and kind support from staff who kept their dignity at the centre of all interaction. They were partners in their care and encouraged to make decisions about this. When they were less able to verbalise, the staff used their extensive knowledge of people’s personal histories to support them how they would have chosen. They embraced family and advocate support and input into the care provided. Their priority was ensuring that people were happy and respected in their home.

People continued to receive safe care. There were enough staff to support them and they were recruited to ensure that they were safe to work with people. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely. Lessons were learnt from when mistakes happened.

The care that people received continued to be effective. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff received training and support to be able to care for people well. They ensured that people were supported to maintain good health and nutrition; including partnerships with other organisations when needed. The environment was adapted to meet people’s needs.

People were able to get involved in activities and pursue their interests. Staff knew them well and understood how to care for them in a personalised way. There were plans in place which detailed people’s likes and dislikes and these were regularly reviewed. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the registered manager responded to any complaints in line with the provider’s procedure.

The registered manager was approachable and there were systems in place which encouraged people to give their feedback. There were quality structures in place which were effective in continually developing the quality of the care that was provided to them.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: The service was last inspected on 14 June 2016 and was rated good.

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on the date the service was registered.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

Stanton Manor was last inspected on 24 October and 1 November 2013 and they were not meeting standards around management of medicines and consent to care and treatment at that time. At this inspection, we saw that there were improvements made in medicines management and there were now systems in place to reduce the risks associated with them. They were administered to meet individual needs and were stored securely. The provider was ensuring that people consented to their care and that if they were unable to do this, then appropriate capacity assessments were made and decisions were made in their best interest.

Staff received training and support to enable them to fulfil their role effectively and were encouraged to develop their skills. They understood their responsibilities to detect and report abuse. People told us that there were always enough staff to meet their needs promptly and that they felt safe. They were supported to maintain good health and had regular access to healthcare professionals. Their care plans were regularly reviewed to correspond with changing support needs and they were personalised and accessible.

The provider had systems in place to assess risk, actions were put in place to reduce it and their effectiveness was monitored and regularly reviewed. There were systems in place to drive quality improvement which included regular audits, developing the staff team and working closely with relatives.

Staff developed caring relationships with the people they supported which were respectful and patient. They knew people well and provided care that met their preferences and they had developed communication systems to help them to make choices. People’s privacy and dignity were maintained at all times.

Mealtimes were not rushed and people were given a choice of meal. We saw that food and drink was regularly provided and records were maintained for people who were nutritionally at risk.

People were encouraged to pursue interests and hobbies and regular activities were planned. Visitors were welcomed at any time. People knew the manager and felt confident that any concerns they raised would be resolved promptly. The provider completed quality audits to continually drive improvements.

We saw that people made decisions about their daily lives. However, there was no reference to whether people had capacity and mental capacity assessments had not been completed for those people who did not.

People did not receive their medication as prescribed and medication was not always kept safe.

People told us there were sufficient staff on duty to meet their needs. We saw that staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of the people at the service.

We saw that a complaint procedure was in place and complaints had been managed appropriately.