Stoneyford 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 inadequate. 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.

We observed staff supporting people in a kind and compassionate way. People were consistently offered choice and supported to make choices where needed. Everyone we spoke with praised staff for their kindness and support. A number of people and their relatives told us staff had more time to spend with people which had resulted in meaningful activities taking place and trusting relationships being developed.

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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Staff stated they now had more time to spend with people, and this has allowed more trusting relationships to be formed with people. One staff member said, “We are encouraged to sit and chat with people, only by getting to know them can we fully support them.” People confirmed what staff told us and most people we spoke with said there had been some improvement. One person said, “They are still busy and sometimes they are not in the lounge when you need them but overall, it’s better. Staff sit with me now and talk. If I ask for help or even a cup of tea it happens, and I don’t have to wait half an hour anymore.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure they met people’s needs and preferences which took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. For example, one person took pride in telling us how staff had supported them to share their culture with other people living at the home in a planned event recently. This saw traditional food being served and the home decorated to mark an important cultural holiday. People had been supported to help make decorations and could include their families in the celebration. One relative said, “It has been really good lately, I think they have a full day event at least monthly now, from Christmas parties to New years and I know they are doing something for Valentine’s Day, it’s nice to see everyone involved and enjoying it.”

Improvements had been made to people’s choices, independence and control. Previously concerns had been raised about people being told what time to go to bed and people said they experienced a lack of activities. Everyone we spoke with told us there had been improvements. One person said, “I would still like some activities in the evening, but improvements have been good so far. We do things in the home daily like bingo and bowling. Hopefully when the weather gets better, we can venture outside more.” Another person said, “Staff no longer tell us it’s time for bed, they ask us if we are ready or to let them know when I want to go to my room.” Record keeping did reflect people’s varying bedtime routines and staff records confirmed these were consistently met.

The provider had not made enough improvement in relation to understanding and responding to people’s immediate needs. While we observed improvements had been made in relation to people’s requests for support with actions such as personal care and toileting, records completed did not reflect these actions. We observed one person declining lunch and becoming frustrated. A staff member described a de-escalation technique within the person’s care plan for this known behaviour however not all staff consistently followed it. The person should have been offered another meal after a period of time, but this did not occur. When we later reviewed daily records staff had recorded that the person had eaten a full meal. This person’s care plan stated their nutritional and fluid intake must be recorded and monitored. This meant the provider was not always responsive in meeting people’s needs or monitoring their outcomes but placed them at continued risk of harm.

The provider and management team cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff however records did not always accurately this or actions taken to support people. Management used a range of tools to support wellbeing including quality assurance assessment, competency checks and supervision, however information contained within these documents were generic and repetitive across varying staff members. However, we reviewed a range of staff meeting minutes which showed workforce wellbeing and enablement was consistently discussed and staff were given opportunities to provide feedback and request support. Staff feedback showed the records reviewed were not reflective of the level of support staff received. One staff member said, “I can go to any of the management team at any time and I know they will help, I can’t fault the level of support I have received.”