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 were updated regularly to ensure staff had accurate guidance to support people effectively. People were aware of their rights around care and treatment. Staff showed good knowledge of the mental capacity act, including capacity and consent. Staff were aware of how to support someone with fluctuating capacity.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

People told us staff communicated well. People said when they needed to see their doctor, staff arranged this without delay. Relatives we spoke with said staff communicated well and kept them updated on their loved one’s health and well-being.

Staff told us they supported people to move into Sandwood safely. The registered manager and deputy manager told us they completed pre-admission assessments to ensure staff could safely meet people’s needs. Staff recognised the importance of completing a holistic assessment when people first moved in. To ensure staff had detailed accurate support plans, short term plans were implemented initially and developed as staff got to know people. The registered manager told us they met with partners regularly to ensure communication was effective. This meant people received effective care and support.

Partners we spoke with did not raise any concerns about Sandwood. A health care professional we spoke with told us; staff referred people appropriately.

Processes in place demonstrated staff worked well with other services to ensure people received effective support. Care plans detailed specialist advice was implemented. For example, a support plan we reviewed for a person living with a wound detailed specialist advice from the tissue viability nursing team had been implemented. Records demonstrated the support provided ensured the wound had healed.

People told us staff supported them to access health appointments as needed. A person we spoke with told us staff supported them to seek advice from a dietitian to improve their health. People told us they enjoyed the exercise classes. People said staying active helped with their overall well-being.

Staff understood people’s needs and how to support them to access health and social care support if needed. The registered manager gave us several examples of working with external partners such as dementia outreach and specialist support groups such as a Parkinson’s support group. Staff told us they completed training with partners such as the health commissioning group to ensure people received effective care and support. For example, staff spoke with us about hydration training they had completed to prevent dehydration in older vulnerable adults. This equipped staff with knowledge to prevent people from becoming dehydrated. Staff told us they worked effectively with other healthcare professionals such as the pharmacy and community nursing team to ensure there were no delays in people receiving any medicines or potential treatment.

Process in place supported people to live healthier lives. Records of when health professionals visited were in place. For example, we reviewed a care plan for a person living with urinary catheter. They had a catheter passport in place detailing what support professionals had provided the person. Staff recorded people’s daily wellbeing. This allowed staff to monitor the persons overall well-being. For example, a person who lived with a mental health condition and was awaiting a specialist assessment had their mood and any periods of anxiety documented. This meant when the person had their assessment the specialist team had an accurate picture of the person’s needs. This meant professionals could implement effective treatment to improve their health and well-being. We also reviewed a record following a fall. A person was monitored according to the providers policy, and a healthcare professional contacted for advice. A body map was completed to identify any potential injuries. Staff recorded people’s daily food and fluid intake where they were at risk of malnutrition. Where needed people were referred to dietitian for dietary supplements. This protected people from the risk of malnutrition.

People were supported to maintain their independence. People told us staff respected their right to privacy and independence. A person we spoke with said, “I am fairly independent but staff help me when I need it, but they do encourage me to keep going.” A relative also told us, “Staff are very encouraging in a very gentle way.”

Staff understood the impact they had on the people they supported. Staff explained they had recently implemented an electronic care planning and monitoring system which allowed them to update records in a timely manner. The registered manager gave us examples of where people’s health had improved because of the support provided. For example, staff monitored people’s weight and implemented changes when people were found to be underweight, as a result people gained weight which improved their overall health.

Processes in place meant the registered manager had good oversight of people’s care and support. Care plan audits were completed to review and monitor people’s progress. Sandwood were in the process of rolling out a new electronic care planning system which staff could update immediately when changes occurred. This meant staff had accurate information to support people effectively.

People told us they felt respected, and staff asked for their consent before providing support. A person said, “Staff always ask if it’s okay before they help me.”

Staff and the registered manager understood how to apply the principles of the MCA in practice and ensured consent to care was sought. A staff member we spoke with told us, “We always support the residents in making their own decisions about their care and do what they want us to do the best we can.” The registered manager understood their responsibilities under The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and told us they completed assessments and best interest decision meetings when people lacked capacity to make informed decisions.

People’s rights were respected, and The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was followed for people who were deemed to lack capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. In care homes this is usually through a MCA application procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Processes in place meant the MCA and DoLS were being applied appropriately.