Stubblefields House

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 changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were encouraged and supported to make decisions about their support. Delivery of support was focused wholly on each person and their individual needs. A staff member said, “I have the freedom to support people as they want.” Support plans reflected people’s needs and preferences and daily notes reflected these. People were supported and encouraged to have a voice in their support delivery. Relatives told us they were kept informed. One relative said, “I’ve spoken a lot over the phone with [registered manager]. I can ring [registered manager]. We have lots of chats and she gives me reassurance too.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked flexibly with partner organisations, for example, day care services and community-based activities. People received continuity of care from established staff who knew them well. People were introduced to staff before they started working with them. One person explained, “[Managers] always bring new staff round. They say, ‘She might be working with us, [name]’. [Registered manager] knows I don’t like new people.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. Consideration was given to people’s communication needs. People received information in ways in which they could understand. However, whilst people had clearly been involved in their support plan development it was not always clear how or when this had taken place, for example, when these were reviewed. We discussed this with the registered manager who said this would be included in their review of how support plans were organised and documented.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Regular residents’ meetings took place where people were able to have a say in how the service was run. People told us they would speak with staff if there were any aspects of their support they were unhappy about. People and relatives told us managers responded to any feedback positively and took immediate action. The service sought feedback from relatives through surveys. However, completion of these was limited. The registered manager had developed a telephone survey for staff to complete with relatives whilst they were undertaking ‘resident of the day’ checks. The registered manager was hopeful this would provide information to support further improvement in the service. People and relatives confirmed they knew how to complain but had not had to do so.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People living at Stubblefields House experienced equity in accessing the support they needed. Reasonable adjustments were made for individuals to ensure any barriers were removed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People living at Stubblefields House experienced equity in their experiences and outcomes and were not discriminated against. People’s views were sought and taken into account.

People were 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.

People’s support plans contained information about their future. However, this information had not considered people’s end of life plans or what they wished to happen in a medical emergency, for example. We discussed this with the registered manager who said they were planning to arrange end of life training for staff. They anticipated this would better facilitate sensitive discussions with people about future plans.