Stone Gables 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 that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well and understood their needs. People and their relatives were positive about the care they received. Comments included, “They are really good; they really know their work and know everyone”, “They are lovely and helpful” and “Everybody here is nice.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. For example, care plans included people’s preferences for care for male or female staff. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. People’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs, including those relating to their sexual and gender identity were included within people’s care files.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. During our observations we found people were not always offered a choice of drink. On the first day of assessment people were only offered fish for their meal with no other alternative. We also observed 1 person trying to stand from being seated and was asked by the staff member to sit back down. They did not offer a choice to the person about whether they wanted to move to a different area of the home.

Staff responded to people’s needs quickly enough to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress. For example, the home had recently carried out an emergency admission for a person who was not able to manage in the community. On the first day of assessment the person was new to the home and at times distressed. At the second day of assessment, we observed staff giving reassurances when needed and distracting the person with activities such as colouring and observed their behaviour was more settled.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. However, there was a new management team, and staff were not yet fully supported through this change. Staff provided mixed feedback and comments included, “The manager is new so not had so much support from them” and “Things are getting better, the manager is nice. She is supportive, you see her cleaning the floor when needed.”