Stanley House

“Whilst the service is not a specialist service for people with learning disabilities or autism, some people with learning disabilities lived at the service. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.”

“Improvements were required to how safety incidents were reported and investigated, including notifying the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of safeguarding events.”

“Care plans were not always up to date or accurate and did not provide assurances that risks to people’s health would be managed consistently. Care plans were not always in place for distinct areas of people’s care needs, such as dressings needed, or for falls management.”

“Records did not show people had always been given food and drink that met their assessed needs and would help reduce the risks of choking. Records of what people had been given to eat and drink were incomplete and therefore it was not possible to reliably monitor people’s food and fluid intake and take action should their eating and drinking patterns change. Records of people’s weight were also not reliable and records showing a weight loss had not triggered a review or identification of further actions to take.”

“Processes to obtain consent for the use of CCTV recorded images had not always been followed, including when people could not understand what this meant. For example, the provider had not applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) or the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to this aspect of people’s experience of living at Stanley House.”

“Systems and processes designed to monitor and improve the health and safety, and the quality of the service were not fully effective.”

“The provider made sure the home environment was kept clean. They ensured there were enough staff to meet people’s needs and had checked to help ensure they were suitable to work in a care environment. Staff teams worked well together, and staff received training and felt supported and valued by the leadership team. Staff felt confident to speak up if anything was not done correctly.”

“The provider wanted to ensure people received person-centred care and had started to try and involve people more in reviews of their care plans. They communicated well with relatives to keep them informed about their family member’s care and arranged for people to access external healthcare professionals when this was needed.”

“The provider was focused on making improvements to people’s experiences of care whilst maintaining the, ‘family-home’ feeling of Stanley House. Improvements were being made to the premises, including refurbishments of bedrooms, the safety of the building, electronic care records and to the storage of medicines. Medicines were managed in line with recognised good practice.”

“We found three breaches of the regulations relating to safe care and treatment, consent and good governance.”

“We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.”