Sagecare (Surrey Court)

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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 ensure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not consistently check or discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing, or communication needs with them.

The provider completed initial assessments before people’s care packages commenced. However, information for staff about people’s health conditions was not always personalised and often contained generic descriptions of conditions such as dementia or Parkinson’s, without explaining how these affected each person and what support they might need.

The provider did not always plan or deliver people’s care and treatment with them or in a way that reflected what was important to them. The provider did not follow legislation or current good practice when for example planning people’s care in relation to eating and drinking and fire safety. Practice did not support safe medicine management.

The provider worked effectively across teams and services to support people. Records showed the service collaborated closely with a range of health professionals, including social workers, occupational therapists, community nurses, and doctors. The provider maintained a good working relationship with the housing provider to help resolve people’s housing or tenancy issues. Staff told us they contacted district nurses promptly if they had concerns about a person’s skin health, and district nurses provided support which helped people achieve positive health outcomes.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, helping them maximise their independence. Staff encouraged people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future need for care and support.

Most people’s healthcare needs were identified in their care plans, including the level of support they required to maintain good health. Where people had specific health conditions, staff received training relevant to those conditions. This helped ensure positive outcomes and meant staff understood people’s healthcare needs and could respond appropriately when those needs changed. One person told us, “My life has improved a lot after moving here a year ago. Care staff are very friendly and help me manage in my flat.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met the expectations of people themselves.

The provider did not effectively involve people in reviewing their care. The provider told us they updated care plans annually. However, people we spoke with said they had not been invited to take part in reviews or to share changes in their needs or preferences. One person said they were told, “If you want a care review, speak to one of the carers, but they don’t know what to do. There is never anybody in the office, no telephone number to use.” A relative added, “As far as I know there is a care plan, but we have never been involved in any kind of review.” Another relative told us, “We had been asking for months about the need for a review, but the lack of management made it very difficult.”

Staff recorded information about the care and support provided at each visit. They told us they documented what people ate and drank when this was requested by health professionals. This supported the monitoring of nutritional needs and informed clinical decision‑making.

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

There were policies and procedures in place to ensure valid consent to care was obtained. People told us staff sought their consent before delivering care. Staff had a good knowledge around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how to practically apply this in their everyday roles. They told us they always asked for people’s consent before each care task and respected their right to decline care.

Where people had appointed a power of attorney, the provider ensured this legal authority to act on a person’s behalf was verified. This helped to ensure the provider was following the correct procedures around gaining consent to care.