Sagecare (Surrey Court)

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care for not involving people in their care plan reviews and not respecting people’s preferences.

This service scored 61 (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 consistently place people at the centre of their care and treatment. People did not always receive care that met their needs and preferences. The provider’s policy stated when people needed support with intimate tasks their request for a staff member of a particular gender would be honoured. ’Most of the people we spoke with told us their preferences for intimate personal care were not respected, including their requests for staff of a particular gender to support with intimate tasks. They told us this had caused them stress and anxiety. One person told us, “I have lots of different carers and that is very difficult when the care is so personal. I don’t like having male carers at all, and I said that at the start. It’s not the male carers’ fault… Some of the female staff I really like, but some I don’t even know their names.” Records did not show how these preferences had been explored or documented. One staff member also told us; ‘‘Some service users only want ladies for their personal care, but management still send men, which is very unfair.”

People and their relatives were not always satisfied with the support people received around eating and drinking. They told us some staff did not encourage them to eat, and some meals were served cold or undercooked. Food was not always prepared in line with people’s needs or preferences, which did not support them to eat and drink well.

Staff told us they did not always have the information they needed about people’s care needs. For example, staff accessed information through a mobile application, but some staff reported difficulty finding key details and said training on the system was not sufficient.

Following our feedback leaders told us they deeply regretted the distress caused to people who received care from male staff against their preferences and told us they would take remedial action immediately.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and the local community. This supported joined‑up, flexible care that promoted choice and continuity.

Communication with other health and social care professionals were effective and enabled prompt adjustments to people’s care when requested.

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

People were not always able to access their own care records to ensure they had up to date information about their care arrangements. People told us they previously had paper records at home which allowed them to see who had visited and what care had been delivered. Since the move to electronic records, not everyone had been given the support needed to access their information. One person had been set up with access on their phone but had not received sufficient training and remained unable to view their records despite repeated requests for assistance.

People’s care plans mostly reflected their physical, mental, and emotional needs. The manager demonstrated awareness of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and explained how the service met people’s communication needs. They provided examples of the steps taken to ensure people received information in formats they could understand.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback, offer ideas, and raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support.

The provider had a complaints policy and a process to manage concerns. Records showed staff responded to complaints in line with the policy, and people were mostly satisfied with the outcomes. However, not everyone we spoke with knew how to make a complaint. One person felt their complaint was not taken seriously and they were not informed of a outcome to their complaint.

The provider sent ‘Voice of customer’ questionnaires to people and relatives to gather feedback about the service. The most recent survey, completed in December 2025, showed mixed feedback, although most people said they were happy with the care and support they received others felt improvements were needed for in dignity, staffing and medicines and were not always happy with the care they received. Senior leaders reviewed the results to identify strengths and areas for improvement, and they produced an action plan to address these.

We found the provider had introduced some new systems in response to people’s concerns. This included a monthly newsletter for everyone receiving care, which began in January 2026. The newsletter provides updates and information about upcoming activities. One person using the service offered to contribute, and management welcomed their involvement.

In January 2026, the provider also introduced a service user forum with the new manager and area manager. This gave people and their families an opportunity to share feedback and influence service development. Managers told us they plan to hold the forum every two weeks to enable people to raise care-related issues, ask questions and work with staff to improve how care is delivered.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had equality and diversity policies in place, and staff received relevant training. This helped staff understand the barriers people might face in accessing care and how to support them to overcome these. As a result, people were able to access care and support in a way which promoted equality and protected their rights.

People lived in their own apartments within the complex, which also included a restaurant run by an external company. Staff supported people to access the restaurant if required, helping to maintain people’s independence and choice.

Staff and leaders actively listened to people who may be at greater risk of inequality in their experience or outcomes. They used this information to tailor people’s care, support, and treatment.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Care plans included information about people’s protected characteristics and set out how staff should make sure these did not become a barrier to fair and equitable treatment.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, including end‑of‑life care, so they had enough time and information to make decisions about their future.

At the time of our inspection, one person was receiving end‑of‑life care. Staff provided this care compassionately. The manager was committed to delivering high‑quality end‑of‑life support. They outlined plans to strengthen staff training and ensure people’s wishes at the end of their lives were understood and respected. Policies and procedures were in place to guide staff and support safe, person‑centred end‑of‑life care.