St Stephen's Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment we did not assess all quality statements within this key question. The overall rating for this key question remains good based on the findings at the last inspection. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people and their support needs, however this was not always reflected in people's care plans. For example, oral care and bowel monitoring guidance lacked detail and required further development to ensure staff were able to provide consistent support to people.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

It was not always consistently evidenced in care plans where people had been consulted regarding changes and decisions about their assessed needs. However, people and relatives we spoke with did not raise any concerns.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people and their support needs and were able to explain to us how they supported people with specific care needs.

The care plans and risk assessment review covered areas such as mobility, communication, continence, oral care, daily life, manual handling and personal hygiene. Risk assessments were in place to help identify risk factors specific to each person, such as manual handling, falls, specific nutrition needs or fragile skin integrity. This helped to provide staff with information on how to manage and minimise these risks and provide people's care safely. However, some of the information lacked detail. For example, oral care and bowel monitoring protocols did not specify people’s individual needs and how often they required support. All risk assessments had been reviewed monthly or, if circumstances changed, but reviews carried out had not identified the concerns we found during our assessment. Where people required care plans and risk assessments relating to their individual conditions, such as diabetes, these were in place, but some required further detail and development.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.