Sagecare (Surrey Court)

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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, or compassion, and did not consistently respect their privacy or dignity.

Relatives shared examples of care that lacked compassion and dignity. One relative described their loved one being left undressed during personal care while the door was left open. People also told us they felt anxious when unfamiliar staff entered their home without being introduced, and the absence of a rota meant they did not know who would be attending, further heightening their anxiety. Some people told us communication with staff was not always effective, they did not always feel listened to or understood. One relative told us, “There is a definite language barrier, plus some staff can be quite rude. Some of the carers are brilliant and look out for [mum], but she doesn’t get it from others, there’s not a feeling of caring.” People and relatives also told us at times staff were late and rushed.

Some staff told us they were aware of these concerns and had tried to adapt call schedules themselves to meet people’s needs.

The provider treated people as individuals and took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s cultural, religious, and spiritual needs were assessed and recorded in their care plans. People’s communication needs were documented in their care plans. This included where they needed adjustments to promote effective communication with staff.

The provider mostly promoted people’s independence, helping them understand their rights and maintain choice and control over their care, treatment, and wellbeing. Where people did not always have choice over their care we have reported in other areas of the report. One person told us, “My son arranged for me to start having the care service when I was coming out of hospital. It was agreed what help I would need. I don’t think there’s a written care plan. I’ve been determined to do as much for myself as possible and I’m working towards not needing care.”

Staff gave examples of how they encouraged people to remain as independent as possible and recognised the importance of supporting people to maintain daily living skills where they were able to do so. The provider shared examples of improved outcomes, including supporting one person to remain independent in managing their diabetes medicine.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The service operated an emergency call system if people needed help in an emergency outside of their normal care hours. Most people told us staff responded appropriately and promptly to calls for assistance via the emergency call system. One person told us, “I have an alarm on my wrist so I can call in an emergency. Two people work nights and I’ve called them for personal care, not often but it’s good to know they are there.” This gave them reassurance support would be available if they had a fall or were unwell.

The provider did not always promote staff wellbeing or support staff effectively to deliver person‑centred care.

Some staff told us they did not always feel supported by the provider. They said they had been left without management support for three months before the inspection and described feeling stressed and let down. Although policies were in place for lone working and an on‑call system was available outside office hours, some staff said the on‑call arrangements did not always provide effective support. As a result, they tended to resolve issues among themselves while on site, relying on the teamwork they had developed. Leaders informed us following our feedback they had made changes to the on-call system to make it more robust and offer support for staff.

The provider operated an internal staff recognition and awards programme to highlight staff who demonstrated the organisation’s values. They also had systems in place to promote staff safety and wellbeing, including lone‑working risk assessments to help ensure staff were safe while carrying out their duties.