Stubblefields House

“This assessment was to follow up on actions from the last inspection in January 2022. The provider was previously in breaches of legal regulations relating to person-centred care planning, risk management, management and oversight, and staffing. Improvements were found at this inspection and the provider is no longer in breach of any regulation. However, sustained improvement is required to the management and oversight of the service.”

“At the last inspection we also made recommendations about best practice in medicines and to review their systems for recording and monitoring accidents and incidents. Improvements had been made in these areas at this inspection.”

“We 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, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. This provider was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’.”

“Stubblefields House demonstrated a strong commitment to person-centred care, safety, and continuous improvement. Safety incidents were appropriately investigated and reported, with managers showing a proactive attitude towards learning and development. People were supported effectively during transitions into and out of the service, and safeguarding practices were robust, including timely DoLS submissions being completed when required.”

“Risk management was generally well organised, through discussions with individuals, and the service promoted independence and provided emotional support. However, documentation inconsistencies, such as missing or unclear risk assessments, highlighted areas for improvement. The physical environment was well-maintained and personalised and wholly reflected the involvement of people living at the service in its decoration.”

“Recruitment practices were thorough, although inconsistencies in staff files suggested a need for an improvement in record-keeping. Staff were well-trained and supported, and the home maintained high standards of cleanliness. Medication administration was safe, but some discrepancies between records required attention.”

“Care planning was comprehensive and personalised. However, we found documentation could be more consistent and clearly dated. Nutritional and health needs were met through innovative and supportive approaches. Social engagement was actively promoted, and people were encouraged and supported to pursue individual goals and interests.”

“Consent and advocacy were appropriately addressed, with staff fostering respectful and compassionate relationships. Communication needs were well-documented and met, and people were empowered to make choices about their daily lives. Staff responsiveness and prioritisation of people’s comfort were evident.”

“Staff wellbeing was supported through supervision and recognition initiatives. The service collaborated effectively with partner organisations and ensured equitable access to support and opportunities. Future planning, including end-of-life care, was considered.”

“Governance structures included regular policy reviews and open communication channels with people, relatives and staff. Managers were accessible and engaged. They promoted a culture of openness and feedback. While some quality assurance processes were in place, these required further embedding to ensure consistency and oversight, particularly in care…”