Tandridge Heights

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

Management helped to ensure Tandridge Heights was a suitable place for people to live by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them prior to them moving in.

Before people arrived at the service, staff were made aware of important information about them. This included information such as specific risks, or health conditions. Senior management told us a 7-day admission check list was completed. This was signed off by the registered manager and deputy manager. The information in the check list was used to help develop a person’s care plan.

A staff member said, “We have the electronic care planning system in which we can read about new residents and also during handover, the nurses introduce the residents and tells us all about the basics that we need. We can ask a nurse at any time if we are unsure.” A relative said, “Dad had 4-months respite a year and a half ago. I was involved in the pre-assessment for both the respite and when he moved in permanently.”

Management planned people’s care and treatment with them when using nationally based assessment tools.

We read 1 person was 88.4kg and 170cm tall. This classed them as ‘in the obese category’ according to the Body Mass index (BMI). In addition, staff had used the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) to identify whether this person was at risk of malnutrition, which they were not. Another person had a BMI of 54.3 and again, staff had recorded them as being low risk of malnutrition.

We also read 1 person had been losing weight and staff had recorded they needed to be weighed weekly to monitor any further loss. We saw from the records that this had happened. The person had gained weight, and their care plan was adjusted to show they could return to monthly weights.

We received positive feedback from relatives in relation to the clinical care provided at the service. One told us, “The nursing side of things is excellent and he is well supported.” Another said, “They are very good medically. I was worried about dad so the nurse came straight down and did observations on him. Luckily he was okay, but to be safe, they put him on the doctors list just in case.”

Management worked well across teams and services to support people.

The service had a good relationship with the local GP practice and pharmacy. This enabled them to access external health professional input when required. The GP visited the service on a weekly basis and staff drew up a list of people who they felt needed a visit. On the day of inspection, we were aware clinical staff were in contact with the GP in relation to 1 person and paramedics visited to check on another. A relative told us, “Liaison with her GP has been good so her care is much better organised now.”

A relative told us how their family member had been referred to the Speech and Language Therapy team (SaLT) saying, “He now has thickener in drinks. He had a SaLT assessment and is on pureed food - soft things, scrambled egg and beans, etc.” Another said, “[Family member] had a seizure and the nurse immediately administered a specially prescribed medication. The carer stayed with him until I arrived.”

We observed some effective teamwork within the service. This was particularly evident on the top floor where staff liaised with each other throughout the day.

Management did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing as staff were not always supporting people in a consistent manner.

Oral care recording by staff was inconsistent so it was impossible to determine whether people were being supported with effective oral health care. For example, over a 2-week period for 1 person, staff recorded on 4 occasions that the person had brushed their teeth.

This meant management could not be assured that people were consistently being supported to brush their teeth. Poor dental health can result in serious illnesses like pneumonia, heart disease, and diabetes complications. It can also affect people’s intake of nutrition and hydration, particularly if they are in pain.

We received mixed feedback from people about the quality of the food they were receiving. We were told, “They do their best. To please everybody is a hell of a job”, “In the last few months, the food hasn’t been so good”, “It’s variable. Some days it’s quite good, some days it’s poor.” We also read in the minutes of a resident meeting held in December 2025 that people reported they were unhappy with the food and had commented that food was not always hot. These comments had been recorded in an action plan for catering staff. Poor quality food can lead to malnutrition, dehydration, falls, pressure sores and cognitive decline

Management helped to ensure that outcomes of people’s care were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We received feedback from some people and relatives about how living at Tandridge Heights had had a positive effect on their lives.

The friend of 1 person said, “She was not coping at home. Here she feels safer. I think she is thriving” and a relative said, “I’d say she is thriving, so someone is doing something right.” Another relative told us, “She is now much better cared for, much more comfortable and less anxious.”

We also read 1 person was on covert medicines (medicines given without their knowledge) but following the service organising GP and pharmacy involvement, the person started to take their medicines again. This meant the service worked with people to improve their outcomes.

Staff told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff were able to describe in good detail the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, with 1 telling us, “Whenever we are supporting residents, we have to be mindful of those principles. We must always assume they have capacity and have a right to make unwise decisions too. We can take decisions in their best interests, but also in the least restrictive way.” Another staff member told us, “You get consent from the service user. We presume capacity until proven not. We believe everybody has capacity to make their own decision. We don’t judge and think for people.”

Relatives also confirmed staff understood how decisions should be made with people’s and their family’s involvement. They told us, “I have LPA (lasting power of attorney) and I have been involved in the decisions.”