Stonedale Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people were not always treated with compassion, dignity and respect.

This service scored 40 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or uphold their privacy and dignity. For example, we observed 2 people receiving clinical treatment in a communal lounge while other people were present. One person was having a dressing applied to their leg and another was having their blood pressure monitored. Staff made no attempt to protect either person’s privacy, such as by offering to move them to a private area or by using a privacy screen. We observed a person in the lounge displaying aggression towards another person seated next to them. When we raised this with a member of staff, they told us the person often displayed aggressive behaviour. Staff did not check on the wellbeing of either person or offer reassurance or support.

However, we observed examples where staff spoke with people in a kind and caring way and knocked on doors before entering bedrooms and bathrooms.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals. For example, during our previous inspection, we found toiletry items stored in people’s bedrooms belonging to other people. During this inspection, we found this issue had recurred. We found multiple personal items, including toiletries, hairbrushes and slippers, stored together in plastic drawer units in communal bathrooms rather than in people’s own rooms. This did not reflect personalised care.

However, we observed staff engaging in general conversations with people that demonstrated they knew them well, including their backgrounds, preferences, likes and dislikes.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence or ensure they had choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. For example, during our previous inspection, we found some people did not have a remote control to operate their televisions independently. During this inspection, we identified the same issue. A staff member confirmed some people without a remote control were unable to operate their television manually due to poor mobility, which limited their independence.

We observed people taking part in group activities facilitated by an activities co‑ordinator. People appeared to enjoy the activities and the social interaction. However, the activities co‑ordinator was responsible for working across both units, which limited their capacity to provide regular one‑to‑one and group sessions. A staff member told us, “[Name of activities co‑ordinator] is great but needs help.” One person told us, “I’m bored here. Activities person comes in sometimes, just for a few minutes.”

However, significant improvements had been made to the garden areas. These improvements enabled people and their visitors to access the outdoor spaces safely and as they wished. People were supported to maintain important relationships with family and friends, and they had a choice of where to spend time with visitors, such as communal areas, the garden or their own rooms. Family members told us there were no visiting restrictions and they could visit at any time.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not consistently respond to people’s needs in the moment or take action to minimise their discomfort, concern or distress. For example, a person told us they were experiencing pain and discomfort due to a wound on their leg. This had gone unnoticed despite staff providing intimate personal care earlier in the day. We raised this immediately with a manager, who sought appropriate medical attention. We observed staff failing to respond to an incident involving two people, despite this being a known occurrence with guidance in place to support the safety of those involved.

The provider did not promote staff wellbeing or support staff to consistently deliver person‑centred care. For example, staff described low morale and reported feeling anxious and under pressure due to insufficient staffing levels to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they often did not have enough time to provide meaningful interaction with people or to take rest breaks during their shifts. Staff comments included, “I do enjoy working here but the stress they put on you is horrible,” “We don’t get time to sit and chat to the residents” and “Very rarely get time to take breaks.”