You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

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 con

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was safe.

Risks had been properly assessed and minimised.

Medicines were well-managed and improvements had been made since our last inspection.

Recruitment processes were robust and there were enough staff on duty to meet people�s needs.

People felt safe and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.

The premises were properly maintained and people lived in a safe and comfortable environment.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was mostly effective.

People�s weight had been monitored but actions were not consistently taken promptly when people lost weight. Records of food intake were not always fully completed.

Staff had received training to help them provide effective support and regular supervision sessions were held with the registered manager.

People had access to care professionals such as GPs and the district nurse to monitor and maintain their well-being.

People said they enjoyed the food and plenty of drinks were available.

Staff understood how to protect people�s rights in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was caring.

Staff delivered care with consideration and kindness.

People were treated with respect and their dignity was protected.

Staff encouraged people to be independent as far as possible.

People and relatives felt reasonably involved in care decisions.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was responsive to people�s needs.

People enjoyed a choice of activities if they chose to take part and staff encouraged people to join in.

Care plan information was person-centred and sensitively prepared and staff knew people well.

There was a complaints system in place but there had been no complaints since the last inspection. People and relatives knew how to make complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager gave robust leadership and was respected by people and the staff team.

There had been improved oversight of the quality and safety of the service.

Feedback had been sought from people, staff and relatives and was acted upon.

There was an open and friendly culture in which staff could speak out with any concerns.

The registered manager kept abreast of social care developments through a variety of sources and training.

Links had been forged with the local community.