Archived: Sandbourne House

The name of a registered manager who no longer works at the home appears on this report because they were still on our register at the time of the inspection.

At the time of this inspection there were eight people living at the home. Three people were happy to speak with us and told us about their experience of living in the home. We also spoke with one member of staff.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found :-

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with during the inspection had no concerns or complaints about the care and support they received.

Staff personnel records contained all the information required by the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This meant the provider employed staff who were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people living in the home.

The home had systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provided to make sure that the home was run safely. Accidents and incidents were audited so that remedial action could be taken to prevent further occurrences. People who lived at the home we spoke with were happy with the service that they had received. All the staff had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which apply to care homes. Applications had been submitted for people appropriately. The staff understood how an application should be made as they had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Is the service effective?

People's care and support achieved good outcomes. People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with a member of staff that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.

Results from returned satisfaction surveys from people who had stayed at Sandbourne House were positive about the way people had been cared for.

Is the service caring?

We saw that care workers were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to do things that they chose and our observations confirmed this.

Is the service responsive?

Services provided to people were organised so that they met people's needs. People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. People told us they met with their key workers to discuss goals and what was important to them. Records confirmed people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided that met their wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them.

Is the service well-led?

Good quality assurance processes were in place. People told us they were asked for their feedback on the service through residents' meetings and that they had also filled in a customer satisfaction survey. The staff member we spoke with was clear about their role and responsibilities.

We spoke on the telephone with one of the providers and the manager, three support staff and the senior support worker. One member of staff said 'I love it here. It's so laid back.' A second staff member said 'The residents are lovely. This is really their home.' A third told us 'It's really lovely here'.

We reviewed care records for three people. Although we found that care was safe in practice because of staff communicated and knew people well, care plans were not always updated to reflect the current needs of individuals and as a consequence did not inform care. Information about people was kept in a number of places and was duplicated, making it difficult to ensure that care was consistent.

People were supported to have adequate food and drink, and to make choices.

We found that people were protected from the risks associated with unsafe management of medication because there were effective systems in place.

People using the service benefited from a staff team who were well trained and supported to do their job.

We observed that staff were respectful and caring and demonstrated an understanding of people's needs in the planning of care and treatment. We saw that policies and procedures were in place that ensured people's needs and wishes were assessed and recorded appropriately.

People's needs were recorded in a plan of care that was kept under review. Risks to people's safety were assessed and plans to reduce and monitor risks to both people using the service and staff were recorded.

Staff we spoke to and records we looked at showed us that staff had received safeguarding training and those that we spoke to were aware of how and when to report any concerns.

In order to protect people using the service, we saw that staff underwent an appropriate recruitment process and received training and support suitable to their role.

There were processes in place to monitor accidents and incidents and the quality of service being provided. People using the service and their families were involved through annual questionnaires.

We saw there was a planned programme of activities which included time set aside for individual requests. For example, we saw that one person, liked to make cakes with the help of a member of staff.