Stanbridge House

Updated 11 March 2021

The inspection

This was a targeted inspection to check on a specific concern we had received about infection prevention control (IPC) during a recent outbreak of Covid-19 at the service. As part of this inspection we looked at the IPC measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by one inspector

Service and service type

Stanbridge House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We looked at the notifications we had received for this service. Notifications are information about important events the service is required to send us by law. We reviewed information we had received and this included feedback from professionals who work with the service.

We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with four members of staff including the provider who was also the registered manager, assistant manager, senior carer and administrator. We observed people who were isolating in their rooms as part of the management of the outbreak whilst observing social distancing measures. We observed staff personal protective equipment (PPE) practices and viewed the environment.

After the inspection

We looked at IPC records, training data, and quality assurance audits. We received feedback from three relatives, one professional who regularly visits the service, and two staff. We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found.

Updated 11 March 2021

The inspection took place on 7 June 2018, and was unannounced.

Stanbridge House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home can provide accommodation and personal care for 27 people in one detached building that is adapted for the current use. The home provides support for people living with a range of physical, sensory and mental health needs, including people living with dementia. There were 22 people living at the home at the time of our inspection. One person who had been staying at the service for respite left the home during the morning of the inspection.

The service had a registered provider. A registered provider is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered managers, 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.

At the last inspection on 19 January 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.

The provider’s quality assurance systems and processes were not consistently robust in relation to the recording of medicines guidance to inform staff practice. For example, staff did not always have access to detailed records or guidance to support the safe administration of people’s prescribed or ‘as required’ medicines. However, this did not impact on people’s wellbeing.

People’s capacity was considered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) guidance. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies in the service supported this. However, the provider’s quality assurance systems did not consistently ensure people’s capacity to make specific decisions had been fully recorded including; for example, where their capacity may fluctuate. People were supported to have choice and control in their lives by staff that aimed to support them in the least restrictive way. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People and relatives told us they felt the service was safe. One person told us, “Since I’ve been here, I’ve never seen any abuse” and “I’m not frightened living here. My family know I’m safe and can come as much as they can and want to.” People remained protected from the risk of abuse because staff understood how to identify and report it.

Staff felt well supported to carry out their roles, and were appropriately trained. The registered provider was open to staff developing their skills and the home further through additional training and discussions in staff meetings.

Staff supported people to eat and drink and their nutritional needs, food preferences and ethical choices were met. One person told us, “The food’s pretty good, and when there is something on the menu I don’t like, they will do something else.” Where special dietary needs were required in relation to people being at risk of malnutrition staff followed guidance given by care plans and the health professionals.

People’s relatives told us and we saw that the staff were attentive, kind and respectful. One person told us, “They are a happy lot of girls here and are very caring.” Care and support provided was personalised and met peoples’ diverse needs. People and their relatives were included in the assessment of their needs and development of care plans that promoted their independence. One person told us, “Staff do sometimes ask about things in my care plan,” and “Yes, I do feel involved in decisions.”

A range of meaningful social activities were offered to people daily. One person told us, “There seems to be enough to do and I enjoy what they put on.” People were also supported to have access to activities with and in their local communities.

Care plans provided information about people and were personalised to reflect how they wanted to be cared for. Daily records showed how people had been cared for and what assistance had been given with their personal care. Health professionals told us that they were very proactive in ensuring people’s health needs were addressed and that treatment plans were followed to ensure their health and wellbeing was maintained.

People when needed received ‘end of life care’ that was responsive to their individual health care needs and respected their wishes. People’s individuality and important relationships were respected.

Feedback received showed people and their relatives were satisfied, and felt that the home was well led and that staff provided good care. People and relatives felt listened to and any concerns or issues they raised were addressed suitably and dealt with in a timely way.