Sandwood 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

People’s needs and rights were supported. People’s care and treatment was effective due to their health, care, well-being, and communication needs being assessed with them. People’s care plans are kept up to date with any assessments completed in a timely manner. Staff were aware people’s preferences and respected these in a person-centred way. People were aware of their rights around care and treatment. Staff have good knowledge of the mental capacity act, including capacity and consent. Staff were aware of how to support someone with fluctuating capacity. This assessment did not cover all parts of our Single Assessment Framework, therefore we have only updated scores and ratings for those areas which we have assessed which means at this visit we use the ratings from the previous inspection to rate the key questions.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff knew people’s needs well. Staff knew how to access care records and ensured they referred to healthcare professionals when needed. Staff told us they referred to specialists such as the dementia outreach team and community nursing team when people needed specialist intervention.

Care plans documented people’s individual risks and needs. A short one page summary detailing people’s most important information was completed. This travelled with people to places such as the hospital. This meant other health and social care professionals had accurate information to ensure they received effective care and support. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into Sandwood. People residing at Sandwood temporarily had detailed short plans in place to ensure their needs could be met effectively. People’s needs were reviewed regularly or as their needs changed. Records we reviewed detailed people, their relative or representatives and healthcare professionals were involved in reviews. National assessment tools were used, to understand people’s needs and how best to support them. For example, Waterlow and MUST risk assessments were completed for all people. People had an oral healthcare assessment in place to ensure people maintained their oral health.

People were involved in planning their care. People felt confident staff knew their needs well. A person told us, “I’m very happy with my care, it’s a two way thing with me and the staff, I communicate my needs very clearly to them.” Records we reviewed demonstrated people were involved in planning and reviewing their care needs. Records in place detailed people and their relatives were given the opportunity to review their individual care needs, some people declined to take part or could not take part in a review of their needs and staff respected this. Care reviews were completed holistically taking into account people’s individual circumstances. For example, social, health, physical, nutritional, and psychological needs were all reviewed to ensure people’s needs were fully assessed. This ensured staff had accurate information to ensure people achieved the best possible outcome.

Staff and managers understood how to implement and deliver evidence based care. Staff understood the importance of best practice guidance and the impact poor practice had on people. For example, staff gave us an example of the use of nationally recognised training to ensure a person who was at risk of developing sepsis received timely and effective care and treatment. Care plans in place detailed RESTORE2 training and what staff should do in the event of the person developing symptoms of sepsis. The manager discussed other people who required modified or fortified diets. The use of the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) was in place for people who required it. Care plans detailed what level of diet and fluids were required to protect people from the risk of choking. Information was also held in the kitchen to ensure all staff knew how to support people safely. This protected people from the risk of avoidable harm.

Processes in place meant people received evidence-based care and treatment. Training and detailed care plans allowed managers, staff and the provider to monitor people’s needs and outcomes. Monthly reviews meant any emerging risks were highlighted in a timely manner. A summary of trends was completed with what action had been taken to improve people’s outcomes. For example, an analysis of falls was completed with what action was required to ensure people received effective care and treatment.

People received care and support in line with best practice guidance. People told us they received care by staff they trusted. A person we spoke with told us about equipment they had in place to ensure staff supported them in line with guidance, they told us because staff followed guidance it made them feel safe.

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.