Archived: Sandalwood

Updated 9 March 2018

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.

The inspection took place on 26 January 2018 and was unannounced. This was a comprehensive inspection carried out by two inspectors.

Before the inspection we reviewed the evidence we had about the service. This included any notifications of significant events, such as serious injuries or safeguarding referrals. Notifications are information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. The registered manager had completed 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.

During the inspection we spoke with four people who lived at the service. If people were unable to express themselves verbally, we observed the care they received and the interactions they had with staff. We spoke with the registered manager and three members of staff. We looked at the care records of two people, including their assessments, care plans and risk assessments. We looked at how medicines were managed and the records relating to this. We looked at records relating to staff recruitment, support and training. We also looked at records used to monitor the quality of the service, such as the provider’s own audits of different aspects of the service.

After the inspection we spoke with two relatives by telephone to hear their views about the care their family members received. We requested and received feedback from the local authorities that commission people’s care at the home.

Updated 9 March 2018

Sandalwood is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Sandalwood accommodates five people in one adapted building.

This inspection was carried out on 26 January 2018 and was unannounced.

The home had a registered manager, who was also responsible for another of the provider’s registered care homes. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

Why the service is rated Good

People were safe because staff understood any risks involved in their care and took action to minimise these risks. There were sufficient staff on each shift to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff understood their roles in keeping people safe and protecting them from abuse. The provider carried out appropriate pre-employment checks before staff started work.

Medicines were managed safely. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed to ensure any measures that could prevent a recurrence had been implemented. Staff maintained a safe environment, including appropriate standards of fire safety. The provider had developed plans to ensure people would continue to receive care in the event of an emergency. People were protected from the risk of infection. The environment was adapted and designed to meet people’s needs.

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home to ensure staff could provide the care they needed. Staff knew people’s needs well and provided support in a consistent way. Staff had access to the induction, training and support they needed to do their jobs. They met regularly with their line managers for one-to-one supervision and had an annual appraisal, which gave them opportunities to discuss their development and training needs.

Although people’s care was provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), documentation relating to capacity assessments and best interests decisions had not been completed in line with best practice guidance. We have made a recommendation that the home review its processes and documentation when assessing capacity and recording best interests decisions.

People were involved in choosing the food they ate and were encouraged to maintain a healthy diet. Any dietary restrictions were recorded in people’s support plans and referrals had been made to appropriate professionals if people developed needs in relation to eating and drinking. People’s healthcare needs were monitored and they were supported to obtain treatment if they needed it. People who had ongoing healthcare conditions were supported to see healthcare professionals regularly.

People were supported by caring staff. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity. There was a friendly, relaxed atmosphere in the home in which people felt comfortable and at ease. Staff understood people’s individual communication needs and supported people to give their views about their care. People were encouraged to be independent.

The support people received was personalised to their individual needs. People’s needs were kept under review and their support plans updated if their needs changed. Staff supported people to take part in activities they enjoyed and to be involved in their local community.

There were appropriate procedures for managing complaints. There had been no complaints about the home since our last inspection. Relatives and other stakeholders had opportunities to contribute their views about the home and the care people received through satisfaction surveys.

The service was well led, with an open and inclusive culture. Staff understood the provider’s values and shared important information about people’s needs effectively. Team meetings were used to ensure staff were providing consistent care that reflected best practice.

The provider’s quality monitoring systems ensured people received safe and effective care. Staff made regular in-house checks and the provider’s regional manager and quality team carried out regular audits. Any areas identified for improvement were incorporated into the home’s continuous improvement plan.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.