Sandpiper

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 people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.
People’s care plans reflected individual needs and preferred routines, they were regularly reviewed to ensure continued relevance and effectiveness. Specific guidelines were in place for some individual activities.

People were supported to decide how they spent their time and regularly spent time in the community. A health and social care professional told us, “I believe there is a person-centred culture at the home, with each of my very different clients being treated and supported in a way that is bespoke to them.” A relative said, “They are really supportive in things they need for their well-being such as going to the hairdresser.”

While some people had specific activities they completed each week, it was unclear how new options of activities had been offered to people. The manager told us often people prefer routine and choose to complete the same activities, they planned to work on introducing ways to offer different choices. A relative told us, “They will only do as much as they want, but it's not for a lack of trying from the staff.”
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.
People received consistent support from staff who understood their specific needs. Staff had additional training when required in relation to people’s individual health and support needs.
The service understood people’s needs and health conditions and, where required, sought appropriate support for people. The provider’s positive behaviour support lead had recently spent time in the service supporting staff with approaches to support one person. People regularly accessed GP and other community health services.
People were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them well and had a clear understanding of how to support them safely. The service rarely used agency staff. This meant people received continuity and consistency in their care. A relative said, “What is good now is there as a consistent team, it makes a huge difference, the new manager is pretty good, and it feels like a home again.”
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
People’s communication support plans and assessments recorded the most appropriate ways to provide information. This included any relevant information to support people with their sensory needs, such as the use of hearing aids.
Some ‘Easy Read’ information was displayed in the service covering topics including complaints and people’s rights within the service. Easy Read is a form of written communication using plain English and pictures to communicate information in a way that is accessible and easy to understand.
The service had identified one person would benefit from being provided with pictorial information to support them to understand their routines. This had not yet been provided but the manager told us this was being worked on.
 

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or review their care, treatment and support. However, people were supported to raise complaints and staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Relatives were not involved in reviews of people’s care. Some relatives told us they were not regularly updated on any changes to people’s health or care. However, people told us they felt listened to and relatives told us they felt comfortable to raise concerns. A relative told us they had raised concerns for their loved one’s safety and measures introduced to rectify the situation. Another relative said, “I can raise concerns and the manager seems very nice, when I wasn't happy, they dealt with it.”

Surveys to give people and relatives a chance to share formal feedback had not been completed since 2024. The manager told us they were planning to send out surveys to seek this feedback.

The manager kept a record of complaints and compliments. They investigated and responded to complaints received. Where people had raised concerns, they had been supported to make complaints and were kept updated on any outcomes.
People were able to speak with staff or managers as they wanted, and their requests were listened to. People were invited to take part in regular in-house meetings, those who chose to take part could raise concerns and discuss various areas, including new activities they wanted to take part in.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff provided support to people which reflected their needs. Where people’s care packages included 1 to 1 and 2 to 1 staff support for community activities, this was clearly allocated and provided, and people could choose how to spend their time in the community.

The home environment was fully accessible to people who used mobility aids.

People had shared use of a vehicle which enabled them to access facilities outside of their local community, including any medical appointments. Staff supported people to attend health care appointments, this included out of hours services, such as accident and emergency.

Staff had access to an ‘on-call’ system. This provided extra support for staff out of office hours, particularly if there was an emergency or if they needed advice or guidance.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.
People’s protected characteristics were known and respected by the staff supporting them.
People had specific support plans which recorded the support they needed from staff to access health appointments where they may find this challenging. Where people’s social vulnerability meant they may experience barriers in the community their support plans recorded actions staff should take to ensure their safety.
People were treated equally, and their care was adapted to meet their individual needs. Staff had undertaken equality and diversity training.
 

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.
People had support plans which recorded any personal goals they wanted to work towards.
One person had identified a goal to maintain their mobility and reduce joint pain. They were being supported to work towards this goal by losing weight and taking part in regular exercise.

The manager told us people had not currently wanted to discuss their end of life wishes. However, there was guidance for staff on what to do to support people in emergency medical situations. There was no one at the service who was receiving end of life care and support.