Sutherland Court

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, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At the last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Staff described a strong person‑centred approach and involvement of people in care planning. While staff knowledge of people was good, this was not always consistently reflected in written assessments and reviews. Some records lacked sufficient detail about people’s communication preferences, mental health needs or risks, which limited staff’s ability to fully understand and respond to people’s needs. We discussed how these could be enhanced by the inclusion of more specific information.

Care and treatment was delivered in line with current best practice and supported by evidence-based tools. Staff used recognised guidance and tools to support people’s care and treatment, and there was evidence of appropriate referrals to other professionals when required. People told us staff knew them well and supported them in ways that reflected their preferences. Care plans reflected evidence-based approaches, including nutrition and hydration assessments and mental capacity evaluations. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to ensure timely interventions, such as GP visits and medication reviews.

Staff 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 described strong teamwork and mutual support across the service. One staff member told us, “If I am having a busy day and thought there was not enough time for me to complete my work on that day there is always people in the care home to support you whether that be different staff or the management who are always willing to support you.”

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. People’s nutritional needs and preferences were assessed and well understood by staff. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s preferences and dislikes regarding food. Staff helped people access healthcare professionals promptly, and relatives described being informed quickly when concerns arise. People’s emotional wellbeing was supported through caring interactions, and staff showed empathy and patience.

Staff routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Quality assurance processes included regular audits of medication, infection control, and care environment, with action plans being implemented promptly. One relative told us, “I have always felt very comfortable leaving [person’s name] with the staff at Sutherland Court. I always find them to be caring, kind and knowledgeable.”

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and associated codes of practice. They had received training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated code of practice. Capacity assessments and ‘best interest decisions’ were in place, but these needed extending to cover a wider range of decisions. For example, only going out with staff, management of monies, and restricted access to items such as knives. Also, when people’s first language was not English thought needed to be given to using translators so they would be afforded all opportunities to make an informed decision.