Stainsbridge House

We reviewed 8 quality statements for this key question. There were enough staff and people received support in a timely manner. Activity staff were deployed to provide a range of social activity provision and support the care team. People benefitted from positive interactions and consistent relationships with staff. There was a relaxed atmosphere within the home, and people were comfortable and felt safe around the staff. However, risks to people’s safety were not always well managed. This was because care planning to support people with distressed behaviour or specific conditions such as epilepsy was limited. People felt safe, but incidents or injuries were not always clearly documented. This did not enable accurate investigation or monitoring to minimise a reoccurrence. The home was clean and there were systems to ensure the safety of the environment. Medicines were administered safely in a way that met people’s needs, although the disposal of medicines was not in line with the provider’s policy. Staff felt well trained and supported, but there was limited training regarding dementia care.

We reviewed 7 quality statements for this key question. Leaders were heavily involved in the service on a day-to-day basis and were committed to providing a good standard of care. There was a strong, supportive culture within the home. Equality and diversity and people’s rights were promoted, and leaders encouraged anyone to speak up if they had concerns. These were addressed in a timely manner and used to improve practice. Leaders and staff worked well with other professionals and enabled people to be part of the local community. However, whilst audits were completed in line with the provider’s schedule, not all were effective. This was because shortfalls found at this assessment, including in relation to care planning and record keeping, had not been identified.