Stanley Park

“A registered manager was in place. The registered manager is registered with the Care Quality Commission and is legally responsible to ensure that the service is compliant with legal and regulatory requirements.”

“At our last inspection, we identified a breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance. At this inspection, improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.”

“Stanley Park was well-led. There was a happy, welcoming atmosphere around the home. A new registered manager had been appointed since the last inspection. The new registered manager and provider had introduced improvements to the service, including to the environment and staffing levels to help ensure people received more person-centred care. Improvements had been made to the environment, it had been refurbished and had a very good standard of hygiene. It was well-designed with more communal areas for people including for people who may live with dementia, or a dementia-related condition to keep people engaged and stimulated. A café had been created, and this was observed to be a hub of activity for people and relatives. Three activities co-ordinators were employed to help ensure people were supported to experience a range of meaningful activities and entertainment.”

“Relatives and professionals described how people received personalised care and support that was people centred and tailored to people’s individual needs and preferences. Staff showed a respect for people's diversity, valuing everyone’s unique identity and needs. The staff team knew people very well and provided support discreetly and with compassion. People’s privacy was respected, and people were supported to maintain contact with relatives and friends.”

“The culture of the service was friendly, open and transparent. People's and staff voices were heard to continually improve the quality of care. People, relatives and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager if they needed to. They recognised their views and feedback were valued and respected and used to support quality service development. The registered manager and provider were continually developing the service to meet and maximise people's outcomes. Effective auditing systems were in place.”

“The home was very well-maintained, and systems were in place to manage the environment safely. The home was clean, and staff were aware of infection prevention measures. Medicines were managed.”

“Records provided detailed guidance to ensure people received safe, consistent, person-centred care and support. Equipment was available to meet people’s needs and to help maintain their independence. People’s mental capacity and ability to consent was taken into account, and people and their representatives were involved in planning their care and support. Where people needed continuous supervision to maintain their safety, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were appropriately submitted.”

“Staff were valued, they were encouraged to speak up and give feedback. There were sufficient trained staff who worked well with other professionals to ensure people's needs were met safely. Staff received training around a range of topics to help ensure they were competent to carry out their role to ensure people’s care and safety. There was robust recruitment of new staff.”