Sandrock House Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 81 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.
Systems were in place to ensure safety incidents and concerns were reported, investigated and reviewed appropriately. The provider had processes to monitor, identify and act upon any trends in incidents, such as an increase in the number of falls or wounds people experienced.
 

The provider worked with people, families and health professionals to maintain safe systems of care and ensure continuity when people moved between services.
Staff completed pre-admission assessments and hospital passports so that key information followed people into and out of the service. Regular handovers and meetings and multidisciplinary communication meant staff shared information quickly when people’s needs changed. Health and social care professionals gave positive feedback about communication at the home and described it as effective and well-coordinated.
 

There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. People and their relatives consistently told us they felt safe living at the service. Staff demonstrated an understanding of safeguarding responsibilities. They were aware of how to recognise and escalate concerns and described clear processes for reporting issues to senior staff. Staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns and described staff as approachable and responsive.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of when people may be subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and we saw that appropriate applications had been made. Leaders maintained oversight of DoLS applications that had not yet been granted. Any restrictions authorised under DoLS were clearly identified and followed by both leaders and staff.
 

The provider always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Staff understood people’s individual needs, preferences, abilities and aspirations and used this knowledge to support people to live their lives with as much independence as possible. People were supported to take positive risks where the benefits to their wellbeing and quality of life outweighed the potential risks, with proportionate measures put in place to keep them safe.
Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were assessed and managed through detailed care plans and risk assessments. These reflected people’s individual circumstances and were reviewed when their needs or circumstances changed. Staff had immediate access to current information through the electronic care planning system and changes were communicated promptly, supporting consistency across the staff team. Records demonstrated the support provided to manage identified risks, including repositioning and monitoring of skin integrity.
Staff showed a strong understanding of the importance of enabling people to make their own choices rather than unnecessarily restricting their lives. For example, one person who used a wheelchair wanted to experience being on a bouncy castle after seeing children using one. Staff recognised the importance of this experience to the person and worked with her and her family to minimise the risks while enabling her to take part. Staff considered her capacity and wishes, arranged appropriate support and created a safe way for her to experience the activity. The person told staff, “I haven’t done this since I was a child.” This demonstrated how staff balanced safety with the person’s right to experience activities which were meaningful to her.
People were also supported to maintain their independence in everyday life. A married couple in their 90s chose to go shopping at Asda together without staff accompanying them. Staff considered the risks associated with their age and health while respecting their wish to remain independent. The provider gave the person a mobile telephone with the manager’s number on speed dial and information to use if they experienced difficulties. The manager supported them by driving them to the shop and waiting nearby, enabling the couple to complete their shopping independently and privately before returning them home. This approach enabled the couple to retain control over an important part of their lives while providing reassurance and proportionate safeguards.
People and their relatives spoke positively about how staff kept them safe while supporting them to remain independent. One staff member told us, “We manage risks well by having handovers in a morning where we talk about residents, any changes, nurses, hospitals, records and care planning.” This demonstrated a shared understanding of people’s current risks and needs across the staff team.
The provider’s approach went beyond managing risk to preventing risk from unnecessarily limiting people’s lives. Staff considered what mattered to each person and found creative ways to reduce potential harm while enabling people to make choices, maintain independence and participate in meaningful experiences. This supported people to live safe lives without compromising their rights, dignity or quality of life.

The provider was fully aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.
Personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) were in place to guide safe support during emergencies.
People told us the home was well maintained, and managers described a responsive maintenance system, with issues addressed promptly. Fire safety systems, water testing and equipment such as lifts were regularly serviced and checked, with external specialists providing additional oversight.
The safety of the environment was a clear priority for the provider. Managers demonstrated a proactive approach to anticipating people’s future needs and investing in equipment and environmental improvements which would provide the greatest benefit to people, rather than simply choosing the least costly option. Decisions were made with consideration of how equipment would support people’s safety, independence and quality of life over time. This demonstrated the provider’s commitment to creating an environment which was not only safe at the time of assessment but remained suitable as people’s needs changed.
Measures were applied to reduce environmental risks, including locked storage for hazardous items, alarmed external doors and clear signage. Key information about people was securely stored to support effective emergency responses. The provider’s approach demonstrated a strong focus on preventing avoidable risks and maintaining an environment where people could feel safe, comfortable and confident in their surroundings.
 

The provider ensured there were sufficient qualified, skilled, and experienced staff who worked effectively together to meet people’s individual needs. The home was appropriately staffed, with a dependency tool used to determine staffing levels throughout the day and night. Staff worked effectively together to meet people’s individual needs. The provider followed safe recruitment practices. Staff also received training relevant to their roles and to the needs of the people they supported.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff received comprehensive infection prevention and control (IPC) training and had immediate access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Regular auditing was embedded in practice, and staff displayed a strong and consistent understanding of maintaining high standards of hygiene. All areas of the home were clean, well-organised, and maintained to a high standard. Equipment, furnishings, and high-touch surfaces were consistently managed to minimise infection risks. Clear and effective cleaning schedules ensured all areas, including bedrooms and communal spaces, were cleaned regularly and thoroughly.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. We found some minor shortfalls in medicines recording, but these were addressed promptly once identified and there was no evidence that anyone had been placed at risk of harm. Staff followed appropriate processes for the safe storage, administration and disposal of medicines.
Staff competencies were carried out to ensure safe medicines management practices. Regular audits were also undertaken, with actions identified and completed.