Archived: Stuart House

The provider of is registered to provide accommodation for personal care for a maximum of 6 people. There were 6 people living at the home on the day of our visit. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us that staff supported them to keep safe and would talk to staff about concerns about their safety. Staff knew how people needed protecting from the risk of harm or abuse and the steps they would take to protect and report any concerns. People’s risks relating to their safe care and treatment had been assessed and all staff knew what they needed to do to help minimise those risks.

People had staff available at the times they wanted for assistance and support. We saw that staff responded to people as needed and told us they had time to support people as required. People had been asked about the level of help they needed with their medicines and staff provided people with support and recorded when they had received them.

Staff were confident about how to care for people and that their training and support provided them with the skills needed. All staff told us they felt supported by the management team to carry out their roles effectively. Staff listened and respected people’s decisions about their care and treatment. Staff showed they listened and responded to people’s choice.

People’s nutritional needs were met and chose the meals they wanted. People saw other health professionals when needed to support and maintain their health and wellbeing.

People told us they liked living at the home and that staff were friendly and kind. People were cared for as individuals with their preferences and choices supported. Staff treated people with dignity and respect when supporting them and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

The registered manager was available, approachable and known by people. Staff also felt confident to raise any concerns of behalf of people.

The management team had kept their knowledge current and they led by example. The management team were approachable and visible within the home and people knew them well. The provider ensured regular checks were completed to monitor the quality of the care that people received and looked at where improvements may be needed.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff. People told us they felt safe when they received support from staff. Staff had been trained in safeguarding and knew what to do if they had concerns about a person's safety. We found that people received their medicines as prescribed by the doctor. There were risk management plans in place for people and health and safety. We looked at how new staff had been recruited. This showed us the provider had carried out all of the necessary checks before staff began working in the home.

CQC monitors the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs had been assessed and support plans were in place. The support plans were tailored to suit individual needs and people's preferences about how and when care and support should be provided. Monthly reviews of support plans were carried out to ensure they provided up to date staff guidance.

Staff encouraged and supported people in leading interesting and enriched lifestyles. Staff showed people how to manage daily living skills and encouraged people to retain and improve upon their independence. We overheard people making choices about what they wanted to do during the rest of the day. One person told us: 'I love it here.' The people we spoke with said they were happy with the level of support they received. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the service. Arrangements were made so that staff could accompany people in attending appointments with their GP and hospital appointments.

Is the service caring?

The people we spoke with were positive about the way they were cared for and supported. Staff were attentive to people's needs and showed patience when people needed to make decisions. Staff had adopted a flexible system so they could respond to people's requests at short notice. We overheard a person who asked to go out for a coffee. The staff member said: 'That's no problem, we can organise that.' We observed a relaxed and friendly atmosphere between people who used the service and staff. We found staff had recorded the outcomes from appointments people had attended with healthcare professionals.

People who used the service had completed an annual satisfaction survey. The questions were written in a way to assist people to understand them. People were encouraged to make comments and suggestions during their monthly meetings with staff. Any issues raised by people who had requested improvements had been reported to the manager for them to act upon them.

Is the service responsive?

Talking with staff and looking at records confirmed that staff acted in accordance with the recommendations made by professionals. When concerns were noted by staff a referral would be made to an appropriate professional requesting an assessment of the person's needs.

The home had its own transport. This helped to keep people involved with their local community and to access their preferred activities. Records confirmed people's preferences and interests had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Each person had been given a copy of the complaint procedure, which was written in a way to assist them in understanding it. A team leader told us they had not received a formal complaint since the previous inspection in July 2013.

Is the service well led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care and support in a joined up way. The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records showed us that improvements had been made when they were identified through monitoring processes. Regular audits had been carried out that enabled staff to make changes that could be of benefit to the people who used the service.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and the ethos of the service. Staff received regular supervisions by senior staff to ensure they remained competent for their roles.

People were complimentary about the care and support they received. One person told us: 'It's great here'. Another person said: 'It's fine, I can come and go as I please'.

We found consent had been obtained from people before any care or support had been provided. We spoke with one person who said: 'Changes to my care plan are always with my agreement'.

People received care and support as planned according to their needs. Staff understood people's needs and how to give the support they required.

People were cared for in a safe environment. We found that the people who lived in the home were able to access all parts of the home and garden.

The staffing levels for the home were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home. We found people received the care and support when they needed it.

We found people knew how to make a complaint and felt supported in that process. We found that the provider had taken the appropriate action when complaints had been received.