Sunningdale Court-Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff did not always initiate conversation or respond to people’s emotional or social needs. We observed occasions where staff did not interact with people in a positive or meaningful way, when there was opportunity to do so. For example, we observed numerous occasions of staff sat apart from people when there was opportunity to engage with people. These shortfalls meant people did not always experience compassionate, attentive or dignified care. Despite these concerns, we also observed staff who engaged with people in a caring, patient and respectful manner. Some staff knew people well and supported them with warmth and understanding. A relative said “They know [person’s name] well and support them well.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Staff did not always support people to achieve positive outcomes. On regular occasions staff did not acknowledge or engage with the person they were supporting. Some people chose to spend time in their rooms, whilst others sat in the communal areas. Staff did not ensure that people received a positive level of support as they did not regularly check on people in both the communal area and their own bedrooms.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not supported to pursue a range of individual activities that reflected their interests and needs. One person’s care plan stated they liked to go to the local shop to buy a newspaper, however care records showed this had not happened for several months. Records did not evidence consistent engagement in daily activities and activity logs showed days where no activity had been recorded. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that people were routinely supported to participate in meaningful activity or develop their independence. A staff member said, “We do not do group outings and activities in the day are few and far between.” This was also observed during our assessment.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff did not always respond appropriately when people became anxious. During this assessment, we observed in 2 separate bungalows people were distressed and staff did not respond appropriately. During one of these observations staff were sat in the same room as the person but continued to talk amongst themselves. Staff did not ask about the person’s wellbeing or check if they required any support for a period of time.

Staff told us they didn’t have enough staff or time to respond to people. One staff member said, “We don’t have time to provide the best care.”

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff did not always feel supported or listened to. Regular staff supervisions were in place; however, staff feedback varied on the effectiveness of these. A staff member said “I like to get across what I want I want to say. Not sure if it is listened to though as nothing gets done.” Another staff member said “I have never had to go to see management however the door is always open. I can go if I need to.”

The provider did, however, ensure regular staff meetings were held to discuss immediate operational matters, including improving documentation.

We received mixed feedback from staff to whether they feel valued, A staff member said, “I feel respected and valued,” however, another staff member said, “No I don’t always feel valued.”