• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Sandbanks Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Coast Road, Littlestone-on-Sea, New Romney, Kent, TN28 8RA (01797) 366810

Provided and run by:
Belmont Sandbanks Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 31 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 25 July 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience; who had cared for an older relative and had other experience of care services. Before our inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We contacted the local authority to obtain their views about the care provided. We considered the information which had been shared with us by the local authority and other people, looked at any safeguarding alerts which had been made and notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

We met with twelve of the people who lived at Sandbanks and spoke with three people’s relatives. We also spent time observing the support people received. We inspected the service, including the bathrooms and some people’s bedrooms. We spoke with three of the care workers and the registered manager.

We ‘pathway tracked’ six of the people living at the service. This is when we looked at people’s care documentation in depth; obtained their views on how they found living in the service where possible, and made observations of the support they were given. This allowed us to capture information about a sample of people receiving care.

During the inspection we reviewed other records. These included four staff training and supervision records, four staff recruitment records, medicines records, risk assessments, accidents and incident records, quality audits and policies and procedures.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

This inspection took place on 25 July 2017 and was unannounced.

Sandbanks Care Home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 25 older people; some who live with dementia. There were 23 people using the service during our inspection; some of whom were living with conditions such as diabetes or impaired mobility.

Sandbanks Care Home is a very large detached property situated in the coastal village of Littlestone-on-sea. The service has a communal lounge, dining area and a conservatory decorated with a seaside theme. There is a large garden; where extensive decking was being laid during our inspection to provide a raised outdoor seating area.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service was last inspected in February 2017. This was a focussed inspection looking at whether the service was safe; to follow up on a breach of regulation found at the previous inspection. There had been some improvement when we inspected in February 2017 but the service remained rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ for safety.

At this inspection, the service was found to be safe for people living there. Assessments had been made about a range of risks to people and actions were taken in practice to reduce them to acceptable levels. Medicines were safely managed and the environment was free from hazards, with regular safety-checks being made on the premises and equipment.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs, and a robust recruitment process ensured only suitable staff were employed. Staff knew how to keep people safe and how to raise concerns if they were ever worried about people. Accidents and incidents were properly documented and follow up actions evidenced.

Weight losses had not always been referred for professional advice in a timely way. The registered manager took appropriate action about this during the inspection. People enjoyed their meals and were given a choice of food in line with their own preferences.

Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure people’s rights were protected and the registered manager had applied for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) when necessary. People’s consent was routinely sought for day to day tasks.

Training and supervision of staff had taken place regularly to make sure that staff knowledge and understanding was up-to-date and any development needs were addressed. People’s health was monitored and reviewed by GPs, opticians, chiropodists and the district nurse.

Staff were caring and supportive, treating people with dignity and respect and observing their confidentiality. People were encouraged to be independent where possible and provided with equipment and support to facilitate this.

People told us they felt there were enough activities on offer. Some people preferred to stay in their rooms but said they were happy with this arrangement. Staff sat with people and read to them or shared jokes throughout the inspection.

Care plans were written in a person-centred way and people received individualised care in ways that they preferred. Rooms were homely with people’s own possessions and pictures around them.

There had been no complaints since the last inspection but people and relatives felt confident that the registered manager would deal with any concerns promptly and effectively.

The service was well-led by a registered manager who was respected by the staff team. Improved auditing had been introduced to provide better oversight of quality and safety and feedback had been sought from a number of sources to further enhance people’s experiences.

There was an open culture where staff felt valued and able to speak out with any concerns. The provider ad manager had fulfilled their legal obligations in displaying the rating awarded after the last inspection of the service, and by submitting statutory notifications about events about which the CQC needs to be made aware.