Archived: Stenson Court

Updated 16 January 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 29 October and 30 October 2014 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of an Adult Social care Inspector and an expert by experience with expertise in care of older people in particular dementia care. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to the inspection visit we gathered information from a number of sources. We looked at the information received about the service from notifications sent to the Care Quality Commission by the registered manager. Prior to our visit we had received provider information return (PIR) from the provider which enabled us to focus on the areas of the inspection we wished to look at in detail. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with seven members of staff and three people who used the service. We also spoke with eight visitors who came into the home during the two days of our inspection.

We conducted a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) during the breakfast period. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not easily communicate with us during our visit. It also helped us evaluate the quality of interactions that took place between people living in the home and the staff who supported them.

We looked at documentation relating to people who used the service, staff and the management of the service. We looked at three people’s written records, including the plans of their care. We also interviewed key staff for example the cook, to help us understand how people were involved in decisions about the choice of meals. As part of the inspection process we also contacted two health care professional about how the service was run.

Updated 16 January 2015

The inspection was unannounced, and the inspection visit was carried out over two days; 29 October 2014 and 30 October 2014. At the last inspection visit in December 2013 we found that this service met all the national minimum standards we looked at. Since then there has been no incidents or concerns raised that needed investigation.

Stenson Court is a care home situated in Balby, Doncaster which is registered to accommodate up to 30 people. The service is provided by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council. At the time of the inspection the home was providing residential care for 19 people, some of whom had been diagnosed with dementia.

The service has a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We spent time in all the areas of the home. This included the unit where care was provided for people living with dementia, and the residential unit. We observed the interaction of the staff with the people who lived there. We saw staff knew people well and respected their dignity at all times.

People told us they felt safe living in Stenson Court. We found staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities to keep people safe at all times. One person had written a comment on a notice displayed in the entrance to the home saying, “I live with joy through the day and peace through the night.” The person told us this was how she felt about living at Stenson Court.

There were procedures to follow if staff had any concerns about the safety of people they supported. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff and there was a programme of training, supervision and appraisal to support staff to meet people’s needs. Procedures in relation to

recruitment and retention of staff were robust and ensured only suitable people were employed in the service.

Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a healthy diet, with choices of a good variety of food and drink.

People had individual personal plans that were centred on their needs and preferences and had a good level of information, which explained how to meet each person’s needs.

People had access to some activities, however recent changes to staffing meant there was no designated activity co-ordinator based at the service.