Sunnyside

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met peoples needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant that people’s needs were not always met. There were some systems in place for people to feedback and have input into their, or their loved ones, care. But the systems were not inclusive to all, and this meant voices of those who were most vulnerable were not always heard. Processes require improvements to ensure all people receive equitable input and care.

The service was in breach of regulation in relation to person-centred care.

There were some systems in place for people to feedback and have input into their, or their loved ones, care. But the systems were not inclusive to all, and this meant voices of those who were most vulnerable were not always heard. Processes require improvements to ensure all people receive equitable input and care.

This service scored 57 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to people’s needs.

Records were task-focused and did not always demonstrate how people’s social and emotional support needs were being met. During the assessment, we found there was a lack of personalised activities, and it was not clear how all people were being engaged in meaningful activities which suited their individual preferences.One relative told us “I don’t see much in the way of activities, (person) was playing with a ball the other week”. Another person told us “Sometimes there are activities, sometimes there is bingo”.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Staff handovers took place, but when observed the information shared was minimal and did not highlight concerns later noted during assessment.

One person’s records demonstrated robust and consistent contact with professionals for support on one matter, whilst there was a lack of contact for the same person on a separate matter. Professionals’ advice and assessments were not always integrated into care plans and therefore not always followed.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider made it easy for people without cognitive impairments, and people’s families, to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. It was not evident how the views of those people who had not, or could not, attend meetings was obtained.

People were listened to and involved in their care by numerous methods including managers discussions with people and staff during daily walk rounds, during care plan reviews, resident of the day updates, and through recordings on the electronic daily notes.

Resident and family meetings were advertised and held in the home, and minutes were provided in different formats as required. Management advised they had an open door for people and families that enabled them to address concerns quickly.

Home learning meetings and organisational learning meetings took place. Minutes from these meetings captured actions to be taken, good practice and lesson learned; however, it was not evident how these actions were subsequently implemented or followed up for effectiveness.

Carehome UK was utilised to obtain feedback, and the home had a high number of compliments. This system relied significantly on the capability and willingness of users to provide input. The provider had plans in place to implement inclusive surveys’ in the future.

The home had regular contact with the GP and other visiting professionals.

The home made sure that people could access NHS care, support and treatment when they need it throughout the day or night. They were reported as good users of the NHS 24/7 system. Notes on the people’s records evidenced contact with other professionals but this was not always consistent, and advice was not always included in care plans.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including at the end of their life.

People’s future plans on emergency treatment, where obtained, were clearly highlighted on their records. No one was being supported with end-of-life care at the time of the assessment. Staff were trained in end-of-life care and staff told us they supported people well and felt confident to provide this care.

Some files evidenced advanced care planning but some lacked detail. There had been some confusion over the changed end of life procedures in the locality and the home were working with the local authority and the CCG to ensure that residents had the correct processes in place to support their wishes and care. Further work was continuing to ensure the processes are embedded into practice. The existing end of life policy is under review and will require updating to reflect new practices.