Sunnyside

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

Effective-this means we looked for evidence that people's care and treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

Overall people’s needs were overall assessed and reviewed. However, this was not always been clear in people’s care plans, which were not always reflective of their needs. People’s care plans lacked detail and personalised information about the person receiving support. People did not always receive care that was tailored to their individual needs and in line with their choices and preferences.

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.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, well-being and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were usually assessed prior to them receiving care and support. However, this was not always clear in people’s care plans. Records were not always detailed and did not always record people’s choices and their preferences.

There was very little evidence that people were involved in their care planning. One relative told us, “We did the care plan when my loved one first moved in here.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People’s hydration needs were not always met. For example, on both days of our visit when the weather was hot, we observed that not all of the people had access to drinks or that the frequency of fluids offered to people was increased.

When people were supported with their nutrition and hydration needs this was recorded in people’s care plans. However, it wasn’t always clear how people’s need were met.

There was very little evidence that people were involved in their care planning and that their needs were reviewed. However, people told us care staff understood their needs and would respond to them. One person told us, “I have an allergy and they [staff] are very good about it and conscious of it with the meals they offer me.” One relative told us, “The staff know my loved one well.”

People received adequate diet and were offered choice. People spoke positively about the food they were offered. One person told us, “The food is very good. If you don’t like what’s on offer, they come round with something else, we always get a choice. “One relative told us, “My loved one is quite set in her ways with the food she likes. The home do try their best to accommodate the meals she enjoys, and they check with me what she likes to eat regularly.”

During the assessment we observed staff offering people choice about what they wanted to eat and providing alternatives when requested. For example, one person did not want a hot meal, and the chef made them a sandwich of their choice instead.

Staff had good understanding of people’s dietary preferences. For example, staff explained how they support one person who does not eat meat to ensure that they were offered a choice of meals.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff generally worked well together. One staff member told us, “The team is good. We are very helpful to each other.” Another staff member told us, “Some staff do more than the other, but I did tell the manager about it and they addressed it.”

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles, and they could speak up and raise concerns when needed. One staff member told us, “The registered manager is very supportive, I don’t feel like I’m drowning with my work.”

Staff feedback was gathered but this was infrequent. For example, staff meetings and supervisions did not take place regularly and staff also did not always receive periodical appraisals.

Staff told us they worked with different services to meet people’s needs but also commented that sometimes it was difficult to receive relevant support when required. One staff member told us,”We keep submitting referrals to the mental health team, but these just keep being rejected.”

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.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s feedback was not always routinely monitored and evaluated to improve care and outcomes for people. We saw no evidence of how feedback was gathered from people who may need additional support to express their wishes and preferences.

One relative told us, “There isn’t a lot of stimulation for my loved one. No exercises or brain stimulation. They get bored.”

The provider worked with a number of different partners and stakeholders. Feedback received from stakeholders was positive. One stakeholder told us,” When they contact us, they[staff]are looking for us to support them in the best way for people.”

People were not always supported in a person-centred way that considered their personal skills, strengths and goals. During both days of our assessment, we observed people were left on their own for long periods of time with no or little interaction from staff. People and relatives also commented on the lack of activities available. One person told us, “A lot of time we just sit in the lounge. We sit about too much. These seats are plastic so we get damp, but I can get up and walk about. Some of these poor souls can’t and they are left for a long time.” Another person told us, “It’s a bit boring in the afternoon. We play bingo, but not very often. It is my only complaint really, that there could be more to do.”

The provider worked with a number of different partners and stakeholders. Feedback received from stakeholders was positive. One stakeholder told us,” When they contact us, they[staff]are looking for us to support them in the best way for people.”

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.