Sands Lodge

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 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We found instances where people’s needs and preferences were not met. In matters of care planning, reasonable efforts to obtain people’s views were not carried out and family or advocates were not always consulted. Documentation did not always reflect people’s current needs and was not up to date with correct information. As a result of this we were not assured that people were always at the centre or their care and treatment.

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.

There were good examples of integration and continuity of care. The provider worked well with several community services such as rehabilitation services or men’s support groups. People were supported to engage and visit these services as needed. Time was taken to ensure that people were supported in a way that benefited them to make the most out of these provisions. Now some people are attending these groups independently.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider had an Accessible Information Notice board at the service. On this was up to date information developed by a leading provider of easy read information. Topics covered ‘Having a vaccine’ or ‘An easy guide to bowel cancer screening’. There were many more examples of this available.

Staff communicated effectively with people, in a way they could understand. Staff adapted their communication based on individual needs, including allowing time for people to respond and ensuring information was clearly explained.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider held regular “residents’ meetings” which were open and available for all people to attend. These were held monthly and people were able to discuss topics such as food and menu choices, activities, improvements for the service. This was also an opportunity for feedback about the care being received. The provider also held ad-hoc meetings for any important events that would affect the service or to share lessons learned from any incidents or events. This kept people up to date and involved them in the day-to-day operations of the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care records showed people had support from a range of health professionals. Relatives told us they were involved in decisions about people’s care, and staff respected people’s choices and preferences. One relative told us, “Care plans were involved and signed by me.”

The provider did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

We found that not all people at the service experienced the same outcomes or standards of care. Some people were found to have a full say about what was in their rooms, decorations and personal items, others could not. We found some people had full access to private spaces or had full control about who visited their rooms, others did not. People’s experiences and outcomes of care were not equitable for all.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

We found evidence of discussions between people and staff about wishes and preferences for the future. We found details such as cultural preferences, for example the country someone would like to be laid to rest. In other examples we found details of religious wishes, appropriate and named people to speak to should the need arise.