Archived: Sandbeck House Residential Home

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who use the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe.

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. Regular checks were undertaken to ensure the environment was safe.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Where people could not make decisions for themselves best interest meetings had been held with all health and social care agencies.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly. Therefore people were not put at unnecessary risk.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said that they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely.

People told us they could express their views at group meetings, meetings on a one to one basis and by completing surveys.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, "Staff allow me to do what I like, when I want" and "All my needs are currently being met."

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service attended meetings throughout the year. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed. People told us they felt their opinions were valued.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

People received their prescribed medicines.

Is the service responsive?

People told us they could speak with staff each day and share their concerns. They told us staff acted quickly. Relatives told us they could speak with staff about their family member's needs, when that person could not make decisions for themselves. They told us staff informed them if their family member was ill.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed.. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes that were in place.

This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

People told us they were happy living in the home and thought they were well cared for. One person told us, 'When I came here I thought I'd won the lottery.'

People were asked for permission/consent by staff before they undertook any care needs or treatment and their responses were respected. Consent forms were not always signed by the person in the service or their advocate.

People told us they received all the care and support they needed and care staff knew those care needs. One person told us, 'It's good. They do everything for me. I have no complaints whatsoever.' However, we found not all the care needs of people were reflected in their care records.

Medicines were stored and disposed of safely, however from our observations we saw the administration of medicines was not always done in a safe way. People told us they received their medicines on time.

Most people told us there were enough staff to meet their needs all the time. The home did not use a verifiable tool to determine dependency levels of people living there.

We saw examples of good care by staff, with people supported appropriately when it was needed but able to be independent when possible. One person told us, "The staff are very kind and help me." Care plans were detailed and explained the care each person required.

People told us they felt safe in the home and thought someone would do something about it if they didn't. When we asked a person if they felt safe they told us, "Yes, I think I do." Staff had received training on protecting vulnerable adults and knew who to contact if they witnessed anything they thought was wrong.

People told us they thought the staff knew how to care for them. Staff said they felt supported by the manager and received regular and appropriate training to care for the people in the home.

People were asked regularly about their opinion of the services provided in the home and a robust system of quality checks was in place. Any actions needed were documented and actioned.