Stanley House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People were provided with care and support which was personalised to their specific needs. People’s care plans reflected their individual needs and provided clear guidance for staff to follow to ensure person centred care was delivered. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated accordingly to reflect any changes. Staff knew the people they were caring for. Staff knew what people liked, their preferences and how best to meet these. One person said, “They (staff) do listen,” and another person told us they knew all about their care plan.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. We observed staff knew people well. Although the service was in a remote location, people were able to go outside into the large grounds and access the community. People had access to vehicles and more care staff had been trained to drive the vehicles. Staff who did not drive had been trained in how to secure the wheelchairs into the vehicle to enable people to be able to go out more often. Staff and the management team told us how they worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure people received joined-up care. For example, input from a neuropsychiatry and monthly specialist GP clinics. Effective systems were in place to ensure the different professionals involved in people’s care worked together so people received continuity in their care and treatment. This was reflected in people’s care plans.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care records contained people’s individual communication styles and preferences, which were understood and applied by staff supporting them. Staff were committed to providing accessible information to people. For example, regular, informative resident’s meetings were held which reflected what mattered to people and provided them with updates about the home. This included information to help people to stay safe and gave people the opportunity to ask any questions they wished about the running of the service. Minutes were created in pictorial formats, to meet people’s communication needs.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Regular supervisions and staff meetings were held. Staff spoken with told us during those meetings they could share any ideas, suggestions or concerns and said they felt listened to. Family, friends and carers experience surveys were sent out annually to obtain people’s opinions. As a result, an action plan is developed following analysis of responses received. For example, quarterly newsletters were introduced in response to 2023 survey to help with communication to families. Systems were in place to respond to any concerns raised.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had access to health and social care professionals such as GP, physiotherapist, psychologist, neurologists, speech and language therapist, and massage therapist. If people needed to be admitted into hospital a printed copy of their care plan goes with them. Hospital passports were not currently in place however, the management team told us they would be implementing these. Advocacy support was in place for people where needed. Referrals were made to external professionals when required. For example, a referral had been made to a charity for a video assessment for one person to enable them to do the thing they enjoy and to the best of their abilities.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People’s protected characteristics under the Equality Act were identified and recorded. Care plans reflected people’s abilities and what they were able to do for themselves. One person talked about the activity co-ordinator and how they organise events such as a poetry festival in Ledbury and a carol service at Hereford Cathedral. Another person told us they liked painting, modelling and dancing. We observed people doing art disco on the day of our visit. The provider had equality, diversity and human rights policies in place to protect people and staff against discrimination. Staff received equality and diversity training.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People, and those important to them, were supported to identify their wishes for future care. End of life planning and advanced care planning was detailed, and people's choices had been considered. These were recorded in their care and support plans and were personalised to them.