Stone Gables Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care records varied in evidencing a person-centred approach. Some gave good details about people and the support they needed whilst others lacked this information. We saw this was being addressed by the provider and they were currently implementing a new electronic system.

Some care plans we looked at showed people and their family members had not been involved in care reviews for a long period of time.

During our assessment we observed activities taking place. The activity coordinator was very visible and appeared to know people well and interacted warmly with them. A music and singing activity took place and people sang along enthusiastically. However, the activity board in the entrance did not represent accurately the activities we saw or was told about.

People provided mixed feedback about the activities in the home. Comments included, “There’s no activities here some days”, “There’s no activities, sometimes we play Bingo”, “We had a cheese and wine tasting yesterday. That was the first thing that has happened since I came a couple of weeks ago” and “[Activities co-ordinator] is brilliant, she gets things moving.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and provided continuity. The service worked with health and social care professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. This included GPs, district nurses, occupational therapists and speech and language teams. During our assessment we observed district nurses carrying out tasks to ensure people’s needs were met.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care records werenot always accurate or completed. During our observations of lunch we found there was a written menu on the whiteboard but no pictoral options were provided for those people unable to read it. When staff were asked about people’s preferences for those who were unable to communicate, they told us, they based choices on what people had received in the past. This meant people were not offered options in different formats to enable them to make a choice.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. For example, recent surveys had not been completed to gather people’s feedback. The provider told us they had planned to do this. There was a complaints process however, there was no written policy or leaflets available to people and their families about how to complain if needed.

People told us they would report their concerns if needed. Comments included, “If I had a problem I’d speak to the person in charge. I’ve never needed to” and “If I was not happy, I would speak to management. I’d tell the staff.”

Care records did not always indicate the involvement of the person or, where appropriate, their representatives.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff knew people well and recognised if they needed the input of health care professionals. Referrals were made in a timely manner, and staff followed the advice and guidance of external professionals.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. We identified shortfalls within the care planning arrangements. Gaps in care planning can affect how people experience care and the quality of support they receive. This was discussed with the management team, as further improvements were needed in this area. The management team were receptive to our findings, with some amendments to people’s care plan information were made immediately.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.Care records did not always include specific information about people’s future plans, significant life events or what was important to them. Some records included that the person and their relatives did not wish to discuss end of life care at that time however, these had not been revisited.