Stoneyford Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

Records and daily notes, including those relating to pressure care, falls and observations, did not accurately reflect the care delivered or evidence required welfare checks had been completed. While we saw no evidence of immediate harm to people the lack of record keeping posed ongoing risk to safe and effective care. The provider responded immediately to this feedback and implemented an action to support and upskill staff.

Improvements had been made since our last assessment and the service was no longer in breach of the regulation relating to consent. Staff respectfully explained care delivery and asked people for their consent prior to providing support. People were supported with nutritional and fluid needs appropriately and staff were knowledgeable about people’s dietary requirements.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Improvements had been made, and the management team had updated care plans to reflect people’s needs regarding specific and ongoing health conditions to promote effective care assessment and planning. People and relatives told us they had been included in this process consistently. However, there were some gaps that remained, as described under the safe section, regarding pressure care, falls and observations. The provider responded immediately with an action plan to address the risks in assessing needs whilst staff were further upskilled. Care staff knew people and their needs and were able to describe how they monitored these. Staff used daily flash meeting and handover records to ensure identified risks and needs were communicated effectively.

People told us there had been improvements to their care and treatment. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s specific health conditions and needs and our observations during the inspection showed improvements had been made to the care and treatment people received, however care plan records and daily note documents did not always record or reflect this accurately. For example, one person’s care plan stated on days when the person felt well, they should be supported by staff to mobilise through the home to improve their mobility, however at a minimum they should be supported to stand at 2 hour intervals during the day. Records did not show any staff intervention to support this happened on a consistent basis. This meant the provider could not evidence that people received person-centred care and treatment as described their care plan.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The provider had improved documents and records relating to people’s care such as handover information for other visiting professionals such as emergency services like paramedics which included current medicines and care needs and their ongoing wishes for their care and treatment. We spoke with one visiting professional on the day of assessment who said, “Staff are very good, they know people and alert us immediately to their concerns so people can be reviewed quickly.”

The provider had made improvements in the ways they supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could maximise their independence, choice and control. However, records did not always reflect actions taken by staff. For example, we observed people participating in exercise activities both in group settings and on an individual basis between people and staff. People told us these types of activities were important to them and happened regularly. However, care records did not reflect these activities had taken place and there was no record of any health benefits or improvements experienced by people.

Processes and systems were not in place to monitor whether people were achieving their goals and outcomes. Whilst goals and wishes were recorded in care plans these were not assessed during routine monthly reviews. This meant the management team did not have clear oversight of whether people’s care was effective or meeting their needs. However, people we spoke with told us there had been improvements to their care and support. One person said, “It’s so much better. I can ask to see a GP anytime and staff support me. I don’t need them [GP] often now as my legs are much better because of staff looking after me.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Significant improvements had been achieved in relation to consent. We observed staff respectfully explaining care delivery and asking people for their consent prior to providing support. Staff used discrete communication methods to do this to ensure people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Where people lacked capacity, care plans provided detailed guidance on how to support people to still make daily choices such as meal options and activities. Staff utilised these methods, such as pictures and samples, to fully support people effectively in decision making.