Sunningdale Court-Care Home

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centered care.

This service scored 57 (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.

Care provided was not always person centred. Staff provided basic care, and support but staff interactions were overall task orientated. Daily records failed to record any meaningful interactions and gave no insight to how people were that day and what conversations staff and people had together. Staff said, “The care is not person centred, there is no choice for people, it is all very routine.”

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.

People were supported by a consistent staff team, which helped maintain continuity of care. Rotas showed agency staff were not used regularly.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider did not meet the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard, as they did not effectively identify, record, flag, share or meet the communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss. There was no accessible information and signage for people to engage with. People using the service could not access the information they need, in a way they could understand. For example, policies such as safeguarding were not created in a way that enabled people to understand this area and engage.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives had opportunities to share their views about the care provided, helping the service gather feedback and address concerns. Regular residents’ and relatives’ meetings were held, where updates about the service were shared and people were able to comment or raise issues. Relatives explained, “They receive regular newsletters and surveys to complete.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s care records did not always evidence people accessed support from external professionals when required. Some people had been able to access support for external professionals such as district nurses and ward rounds. However, it was documented in a person’s risk assessment they required dental support, but there was no evidence this referral had been completed and the dental care provided.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training which meant they had the skills to ensure that people received equitable care regardless of their background. The provider also had an appropriate equality, diversity and inclusion policy in place.

People were not always 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.

People were not consistently supported to make informed choices about their future, as care plans did not identify goals or longer-term aspirations. This meant people had limited opportunities to work towards outcomes such as developing independence skills. Goals that were recorded were limited, for example, having a good night sleep. A staff member told us, “[Person’s name] it is quite independent, but they are just living here, there are no plans for further independence that we are aware of.”

People had end of life care plans in place; however, these were not always detailed. For example, it was documented to follow a person’s wishes, but it was not clear from the documentation what these wishes were.