Sunningdale Court-Care Home

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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care plans were not person-centred, and they did not always contain enough detail to ensure people received effective care and treatment. We found examples where essential guidance was missing. For instance, a person living with a range of health conditions did not have the appropriate health care plans in place. This meant staff did not have clear information to support them in identifying and responding to potential risks in a timely and consistent way. Staff told us, “Some care plans have detail in, and some do not.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The provider did not effectively implement recognised assessment tools used to monitor people’s health needs. For example, where people were identified as being at risk of malnutrition, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) had not been appropriately implemented and followed. Several people were assessed as requiring to be weighed weekly, but this had not been actioned. Some people had not had their MUST assessment reviewed on a monthly basis. This increased the risk that people may not be identified if their malnutrition needs increased.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

The provider did not have effective systems to support consistent communication and information sharing among staff. Only team leaders received a structured handover at the start of each shift, meaning not all staff had access to the same essential information needed to deliver safe and coordinated care.

Staff said, “Team leaders give handover; it is good we get the information we need for the day but not the full information. So, if someone is unwell and the daily records are not documented very well, we do not have the full information.” Another staff member said, “I do not understand why all staff are not involved in the handover.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were not supported to be physically active on a daily basis. We were not assured and did not observe during this assessment that staff always supported people to take exercise, take part in activities or enjoy the outdoors to help ensure they lead healthier lives on a regular basis. However, people were supported to access their annual learning disability health checks, and as needed if concerns arose about their health.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

The provider did not have effective processes to monitor people’s health outcomes. One person needed to be offered a set amount of fluid each day, which was recommended by a health professional. However, this was not clearly documented in their daily records, there was no evidence this had been reviewed and any action taken if the fluid target was not met. Staff discussed this person and said “[Person name] does not get enough fluid intake. When staff offer fluids to people it is very routine at the following times, breakfast, midmorning, lunch, mid afternoon, evening. There is no fluid offered in between.”

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

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and respected people’s rights when supporting them with decisions about their care. We observed staff seeking consent before providing support and responding to people in a considerate and respectful manner, which people reacted positively to.