Stonecroft

We found the following examples of good practice.

Stonecroft is a respite service, people stayed for short periods of time, although people in respite did not receive many visitors’ procedures were in place should family and friends want to visit.

The layout of the premises ensured the risk of the spread of COVID-19 was reduced. Regular cleaning of all touch points and other key areas was carried out throughout the day. PPE was readily available, and we observed staff wearing PPE as required.

We observed systems and processes in place, in line with guidance, to ensure visitors to the home did not introduce and spread Covid-19. Policies were in place for professionals visiting, they are subject to a range of screening procedures, including showing evidence of Covid-19 vaccination and a negative lateral flow test before entry into the home was allowed.

Detailed risk assessments were in place for people who used the service which included guidance for staff to follow should the person display symptoms of COVID-19, how to safely access the community.

The provider had an up to date infection control policy in place and carried out appropriate environmental audits. The provider ensured staff were kept up to date with government guidance.

Stonecroft is a service which provides short term (respite) care to young adults who are living with a learning disability and some complex health conditions. It is registered to accommodate five people at any one time. At this inspection four people were accommodated for respite care. The respite service is accommodated on the first floor of a building that also accommodates a day centre, the service is known to people using the service as the hotel, we will refer to Stonecroft as the Hotel in this report.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were kept safe and supported by consistent staff who knew them and their needs well. Staff communicated effectively with each other about people's needs.

People told us they felt safe. People's responses and interactions showed us that they felt comfortable with the staff members supporting them. The service worked hard to promote inclusivity and people's diversity was embraced.

People were provided with a variety of opportunities to go on outings and take part in activities. This included in-house activities, day centres and group outings to encourage socialising and getting to know people.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support, by promoting choice, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Thorough recruitment and staff induction was in place to ensure that staff were suitable to work and provide support within the home. Staff worked across Chaos services so that they got to know everyone.

Potential risks to people had been assessed and measures put in place to mitigate these. If accidents or incidents occurred, staff acted to reduce the risk of similar incidents happening again. Medicines were managed safely, and staff maintained appropriate standards of hygiene and infection control. Staff supported people to maintain good health and worked effectively with professionals involved in their care.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.

The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good. (Report published 14 March 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Stonecroft is a service which provides short stays (respite) to younger adults who are living with a learning disability and some complex health conditions. It is registered to support up to five people at any one time. The provider told us they had taken the decision not to support any more than four people as they felt this worked better for the young people who accessed the service. Stonecroft was referred to by the people using it and staff as ‘The Hotel’. The registered manager told us this helped people to understand it was a break for them. The Hotel was situated above the a day service (an unregulated service) which was run by the provider and was separate to the day service.

A registered manager was 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. The registered manager was also a director of the company and the nominated individual.

People were safeguarded from harm as the provider had systems in place to prevent, recognise and report any suspected signs of abuse. Medicines were managed safely and risks associated with people’s needs had been assessed with plans developed to mitigate such risks. People could be confident they were being cared for by staff appropriate to do so because the provider operated safe recruitment processes and ensured there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs.

Staff felt well supported and received the training they required to effectively support people. People had access to a range of health and social care professionals and staff acted on specialist advice given when planning and delivering care and support.

Staff knew their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had applied that knowledge appropriately. They understood the importance of obtaining people's consent when supporting them with their daily living needs.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and demonstrated kind, compassionate care. They were involved in decisions about their care and support. A person centred service was provided where people could decide how they spent their time while at The Hotel. Care plans reflected people’s needs and staff responded well to people.

A complaints policy was in place and people knew how to use this if they needed to. The provider responded appropriately to complaints.

The registered manager and director were visible in the service and were consistently described in a positive manner. Systems were in place to use information gathered to learn lessons and make improvements where needed.