Sunnyside

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring-this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement.

Staff overall treated people with dignity and respect. Staff overall knew people well and had good understanding of their individual preferences and communication needs. However, people’s individual needs were not always met.

This service scored 55 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People spoke positively about staff and care and the support they provided. One person told us, “I like it here. The carers are good, and they do the best they can.” Another person told us, “It took a while to settle in but everybody is very kind. The staff are helpful, friendly and very respectful.” One relative told us,” They[staff] work very hard here, we’ve had one or two small issues, but they are a very nice team overall.”

Staff told us they knew how to treat people with respect and dignity. One staff member told us, “When helping people with their wash, I always explain to them what I do and place towel over them to protect their dignity.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strength, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff were well-intentioned towards people. However, people were not always treated as individuals and their individual needs were not always met. For example, we saw a care plan for one person where the importance of religion was noted. However, there was no information about how this person was supported by staff to meet their religious needs. We were told that a local vicar visited regularly to offer spiritual support to those who wnated this.

Staff knew people well but there was very little meaningful interaction between staff and people. We observed people left on their own for a long period of time with no interaction from staff and no activities offered.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff told us they felt strongly about ensuring that people’s needs were met. One staff member told us, “It is important to me to keep people safe, meet their needs.” However, we observed that people’s needs were not always met. For example, people did not always have access to drink or available means of calling for assistance when required. We told the registered manager about this, and they took action following our feedback. The registered manager ordered some new call bells for people.

People’s personal care needs were not always met. For example, we saw a female resident with fingernails that needed cleaning.

We observed that people’s dignity was not always upheld. For example, we saw one person having their breakfast in an odorous bedroom which required thorough cleaning including a commode which needed emptying. We alerted member of staff, and they promptly attended to the person.

During the assessment we also saw examples of staff being attentive and responsive. For example, staff reacted quickly when people needed to go to the toilet or when they wanted an alternative to the meal, they were served during the lunch time.

Staff weren’t always given opportunities to provide their feedback.

Staff received supervisions and appraisal. However, some staff told us this does not always take place regularly. One staff member told us,” I can’t remember when I had my last supervision. Perhaps this was last year.”

Staff told us they felt supported and spoke positively about the registered manager. One staff member told us,” I do feel supported here.” Another staff member told us, “If we need help the manager will step in sometimes to help us.”

Staff were provided with training, and the registered manager was addressing identified short comings in dementia training and supporting people with behaviour that may challenge. Staff was provided with opportunities to further their professional development by completing additional learning and training.