Sanctuary Oasis Ltd

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 service since it was registered on 16 May 2024. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were happy with how their care needs were met and they told us it was easy to make changes should this be needed. One person said, “The carers do everything they should; I am in bed all of the time, and they always make sure that I am comfortable. When I get out of bed, they know that my legs are not good and I can be in pain, so they help me get my legs out and support me to use my return equipment to move onto the commode. They understand how the equipment works.”

People’s care plans were person-centred and included information about their preferences, what was important to them, and any protected characteristics under the Equality Act. They provided clear guidance for staff on how to support people’s wellbeing and individual choices, such as where they preferred their lifeline pendant and drink to be placed.

Staff told us they understood people’s needs and respected their wishes. One staff member said, “There is information in the care plan, but I spend time with people to get to know them; talking to them about what's important, likes and dislikes and routines, so I know how to support them, making it person centred care.”

Relatives felt communication with staff and management was open and effective. One relative said staff safely supported their family member during hoist transfers while maintaining their comfort and dignity. They also said staff spent time engaging with their family member during tube feeds by reading to them or playing with toys, demonstrating a person-centred approach to care.

Most people described staff as reliable and punctual. However, one person said that occasional visits outside agreed times meant they went to bed earlier than they preferred. Visit logs reflected this feedback. The provider agreed to strengthen monitoring of visit times and staff punctuality to better support people’s routines and preferences.

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.

Leaders and staff worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure people received coordinated care. Advice and information from relevant professionals were recorded in care records and shared with staff, supporting continuity of care and smooth transitions between services. One relative said, “[Person name] spent some time in hospital recently, so the care was cancelled, but when they were ready to come home, Sanctuary moved everything around so that they could send carers for them again.”

People and their relatives valued the continuity of care provided by regular staff who knew them well. People’s preferences were recorded to help them remain in control of their care, and staff supported their independence, relationships, community involvement, and wellbeing.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider was working in line with the Accessible Information Standard, ensuring information was available in formats that met people’s needs, including easy read, large print and braille where required.

People’s communication needs were assessed and recorded in their care plans, including any support required with hearing, vision, or speech. Staff understood these needs and adapted their communication, accordingly, using methods such as gestures, non-verbal cues, and people’s first language where appropriate.

People’s personal information was managed securely and kept confidential. Records were stored safely, with paper records secured and electronic records password protected. The provider had appropriate data protection policies in place, was registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and staff received training in information governance.

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 their relatives had been involved in reviewing care needs and care plans and were regularly asked for feedback. As part of the transition to a digital care system, people and relatives were consulted to ensure care information remained accurate and reflected their current needs.

Leaders encouraged feedback through care reviews, spot checks, surveys, and complaints processes. These were available in accessible formats, enabling people and their relatives to share their views. Recent survey results showed positive feedback about the care and support provided.

People and relatives were confident to speak with staff or leaders if they had concerns or feedback. One person told us, “I had to ring the office about a new member of staff; I found them very unapproachable; they apologised and spoke to the person concerned. If I had any other concerns I would absolutely have no worries about contacting them again.”

Systems were in place to manage complaints, and records showed concerns were investigated and responded to appropriately. Complaints were reviewed monthly, and learning was shared with staff to support continuous improvement. Whilst no concerns had been raised about visit times, the provider had identified the need monitor and punctuality and was increasing management capacity to strengthen oversight.

The compliments log showed feedback was shared with staff, with particular recognition given to individual team members for their positive contributions.

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

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service to ensure care could be provided safely and effectively. Care was tailored to individual needs and preferences, including preferred visit times including the gender of staff if required. Reasonable adjustments were made to support access to care and information, and staff worked with relevant professionals when people’s needs changed to ensure they continued to receive appropriate support.

People and their relatives knew how to contact the office or staff in an emergency. An on-call system, managed by senior staff and leaders, provided out-of-hours support and guidance. The provider also had a business continuity plan in place to help maintain care during emergencies.

Staff and leaders actively listened and understood the needs of people who may experience inequality and tailored support accordingly. They promoted equality, reduced barriers to care, and protected people’s rights. Staff received equality, diversity, and inclusion training, helping them support people with different protected characteristics and reduce the risk of discrimination.

Staff gave examples of reducing health inequalities, including supporting people to arrange GP appointments and access equipment or home adaptations to promote safety and independence. One relative told us they could use the digital care system to monitor visit times; review care provided and check their family member had received their medicines.

People were treated fairly and received support that reflected their assessed needs and personal circumstances. One person told us, “[Staff name] is my main carer and really understands me. Anything I need, I just ask her. They take me to a swimming group, take me shopping and help me do my weekly food shop. They make me feel happier doing the things that I want to do, getting me out there. I have short-term memory loss, and they know where I like to go.”

Relatives told us the support provided had a positive impact on their family member’s quality of life for instance one person had additional hair washing tasks including when requested on a preferred day. One relative said, “If [Person's name] did not see the carers, they would be sitting on their own all day. [Person's name] really likes the carers; they are very personal with them. They sit and talk to them.”

Overall, people experienced personalised care that promoted independence, inclusion and positive outcomes, regardless of their individual circumstances.

People were 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.

At the time of our assessment visit, no one was receiving end-of-life care.

Systems were in place to support people to discuss and record their end-of-life wishes, should they choose to do so. Where appropriate, people’s end-of-life wishes were discussed and documented, in line with their preferences and those of their relatives.

The registered manager confirmed they would work alongside relevant health professionals should anyone require support with end-of-life care. Staff had received end-of-life care training and were confident to work with healthcare professionals to provide compassionate, person-centred care when required.