Stockingate Residential Home

There was not always robust assessment of need processes in place due to a lack of effective care documentation. The service did not always provide evidence-based care and treatment for people, such as meaningful activities or monitoring of people’s behaviour. Staff teams and services worked well together. People were not always fully supported to live healthier lives, for example, appropriate diet documentation was not always in place. There was a lack of oversight of monitoring and improving people’s outcomes, despite regular review of care plan documentation. There were not always appropriate mechanisms in place to support consent to care and treatment. For example, there was a lack of effective management of best interest decisions. There was use of personal devices by staff, to take photos and videos of people, without appropriate consent in place.

We observed staff to be kind and caring towards people. Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of people’s individual needs, likes and preferences. The staff responded well to meet people’s immediate needs. We received mixed feedback from people regarding the staff team. People were treated as individuals, and there was supporting documentation in relation to people’s life history, cultural and religious preferences. Staff provided largely positive feedback regarding workforce wellbeing.

The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment. For example, people were not always given opportunity to be involved in decisions relating to their care, although relatives had been consulted. There were staff, residents’ meetings and reviews held, however, people were not always provided with accessible information to make informed decisions in relation to their care such as, pictorial menus or safeguarding information. The service worked with external agencies to ensure they had equal access to services when they needed it, although we received mixed feedback from professionals. The service had appropriate processes in place regarding planning for the future. There was a diverse workforce in place.

The service did not have a clear vision that was understood by all staff throughout the service. There was compassionate leadership, however governance systems and processes were not robust to ensure overall oversight or drive improvements within the service. People and staff understood how to speak up and felt confident to raise concerns with leaders. The service largely worked well with local partners. There were processes in place to discuss learning in the service, however, there was a lack of innovation for improvement. The service advised us how they were going to address areas of improvement, having already started to implement changes. Leaders within the service were proactive in making changes to improve following our feedback.