• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Sandbanks

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Cacklebury Close, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 3LF (01323) 464600

Provided and run by:
East Sussex County Council

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

4 January 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 4 January 2017 and was unannounced.

Sandbanks is a purpose built property covering two floors. The service can accommodate 12 people with a learning disability for short or longer period of respite including emergency respite. The age range of people using the service is 18 to 68 years. Care and support was provided to people living with a learning disability and other conditions that included diabetes and epilepsy. On the day of our inspection there were six people at the service for planned respite and three people who had accessed the service for emergency respite. The service had 40 people accessing the service for regular respite.

The service has a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust, which ensured that appropriate checks were carried out before new staff started their employment. Staff received a thorough induction which included shadowing experienced staff. All staff undertook regular training to ensure they had up to date knowledge and skills to provide the right support and care to people.

Risks to people were anticipated, identified and monitored. Staff managed risk effectively and supported people's decisions, so they had as much control and independence as possible. Risks were regularly reviewed and updated.

Staff had received training in adult safeguarding and were assessed as competent in how to recognise and report abuse. Staff knew how to report concerns and were confident any concern would be fully investigated to ensure people were protected.

People were supported to take their medicines by staff who were appropriately trained and had undergone annual competency assessments. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded in accordance with the registered providers policies and procedures.

People were involved in the development of their care plans. These provided staff with clear direction and guidance about how to meet each person's individual needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated. This meant people received person centred care.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Dietary needs were planned for and when required, monitored to ensure people had sufficient food and drink to meet their individual needs.

Daily records and end of respite records clearly documented people's daily activities, medication administration, any concerns as well as other information relevant to the person.

People knew how to raise concerns and make complaints. People, their relatives and health and social care professionals who had raised concerns confirmed they had been dealt with promptly and to their satisfaction.

The management structure within the service provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability.

There were quality assurance systems in place to ensure areas for improvement were identified and addressed. People's feedback, views and ideas were actively sought from the management team and used for service development.

28 May 2014

During a routine inspection

One Adult Social Care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

We spoke with five people who lived at the home, two relatives and six members of staff, including the registered manager, deputy manager, three team leaders and a care worker (support coordinator). We also spoke with the Quality Assurance Manager for the service.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People who used the service told us they felt safe. A relative told us "It's always so positive there and it's so important for the family to know that (name) is safe and happy there and so well looked after."

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The registered manager compiled the staff rotas, they took people's care needs into account when they made decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped ensure that people's needs were always met.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practices were identified and people were protected.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and, as far as practicable, they were involved in developing and reviewing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

People and their relatives said that they had been involved in reviewing care plans and they reflected their current needs. One relative told us 'Communication is very good. They always keep us informed of how she is and we let them know of any changes, either in writing or when I go in ' which I often do.'

People's needs were taken into account with the accessible layout of the service, enabling people to move around freely and safely.

Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

The home had systems in place to assess and manage risks and to provide safe and effective care. Staff were appropriately trained and training was refreshed and updated regularly. Staff could also take the opportunities provided to study for additional qualifications and to develop their understanding of caring for people with complex needs. We also found evidence of staff seeking advice, where appropriate, from the GP or social services.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. A person using the service told us, "I like it here. The staff are alright and they look after us." A relative told us 'My daughter has an awful lot of emotional problems and there is always someone around to spend time with her. They understand her needs and provide that emotional support, which is so important to (name) and us, ensuring that she is happy and comfortable.'

We spoke with relatives who said they were able to visit at any time and they were 'always made to feel welcome'. We saw that the staff were enthusiastic, kind and sensitive and took time interacting with people throughout the home. We observed that people were treated with consideration, dignity and respect.

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to take part in a range of social, educational and recreational activities, reflecting their interests and preferences, both in and outside the service. We saw that to ensure consistency and continuity of care, individual routines were respected and maintained, wherever possible. This included people attending the same day services that they did when at home. The service had access to an adapted minibus, which helped to keep people involved with their local community. A care worker told us "We spend time with people and get to know them individually, so we can find out what their interests are and how they like to spend their day."

People's needs were assessed before they moved into the service and detailed and comprehensive care plans and risk assessments were maintained and reviewed regularly. This ensured that the care and support provided reflected any identified changes in people's individual needs.

We were told by the manager that the service had good systems in place to monitor its own standards of service delivery and to gain feedback from people using the service, their relatives and other stakeholders. As well as satisfaction questionnaires, the manager told us they frequently carried out a range of internal audits, including care planning, medication and staff training. We saw that the service was also subject to regular quality monitoring audits, including visits by the county's Quality Assurance and Compliance Team and the Contracts and Purchasing Unit. The manger also told us that they operated an 'open door policy' so people who used the service and visitors to the home could discuss any issues they may have.

People told us they were asked for their feedback on the service and their feedback was heard and changes were made as a result. People and their relatives, who we spoke with, also knew how to make a complaint or raise any issue or concern that they might have. They were also confident that their concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care and support in a joined up and consistent way.

The service had established quality assurance systems in place and records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service provision continued to improve.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff showed a good awareness of the ethos of the service and a sound understanding of the, often complex, care and support needs of people who used the service. They told us that they felt valued and supported by the manager and were happy and confident in their individual roles.

12 April 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited most people were out at day care. We met and spoke with four people who used the service and four members of staff in addition to the manager.

Three people we spoke with were able to make some comment about the service they received. They told us they liked being at Sandbanks and were involved in decisions about what they did there. We looked at three support plans. We found these provided a good range of information about people's individual needs and how they were supported. Staff told us they felt support plans gave them enough information, but for agency staff 'at a glance' information could be improved.

We saw that there had been upgrading and redecoration of some areas of the building to address previous shortfalls. We were informed about further planned improvements. We saw that equipment used to support people was maintained at appropriate intervals.

We were satisfied that the provider was actively attempting to recruit to staff vacancies and provide the right number of staff on each shift. However, the skill mix was not always right. Core staff said that they sometimes felt overly pressured if only a few experienced staff were on shift with a high proportion of agency staff.

We saw that a complaints process was in place and that the service was dealing appropriately with minor concerns and formal complaints. However, staff needed some additional training to help differentiate better between minor concerns and complaints.

7 August 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The majority of people using the service for respite care continued with their daytime activities whilst there. On this occasion we met and spoke with only one person during our visit.

They told us that they enjoyed coming to the unit for respite. They also spoke enthusiastically about visiting the service weekly when not in respite to help with the garden. This was clearly something they enjoyed and valued and looked forward to doing each week.

24 May 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We spoke with three people who live in the service permanently and we spoke with six people who were using the respite service. One person was unable to engage in conversation but was happy to show us where their respite room was and when we asked if they liked coming to stay at the unit they made positive signs and sounds.

People in the long stay unit said they liked living at the home; they had everything they needed and said that staff were very good.

People using the respite service were excited and chatty about being there. They told us that they liked to stay for respite because of the activities they did with staff. They said they enjoyed going out shopping with staff and going to shows. Some people said they liked the using the garden and also being able to shower instead of having a bath.