Sagecare (Laburnum House)

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 the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. 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.

The provider delivered personalised care that reflected people’s individual needs. For example, staff supported one person to move from another care setting using a detailed transition plan designed to reduce anxiety and support them to settle into their new home. The provider worked with the person, their relatives, and relevant professionals to understand their life history, communication needs, sensory needs, routines, and preferences. Staff used this information to develop a care plan based on positive behavioural support principles, which focused on creating positive situations, reducing the likelihood of distress. This person-centred approach helped the person settle successfully into their new home.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity

People told us they received a consistent and reliable service with good continuity of staff. They said staff stayed for the planned duration of visits and remained longer when additional support was needed. Staff told us they worked regular care rotas, which helped them build positive relationships with people. They said senior staff responded promptly when additional support was required, for example by arranging cover for subsequent visits when staff were delayed supporting a person. This helped minimise disruption and ensure people received their planned care.

The provider organised care rotas to ensure visits were prioritised according to people’s needs, including those requiring time-critical support or with more complex needs. Systems were in place to monitor delivered hours and maintain communication with people and professionals about changing needs and funding requests.

Care records reflected visits were scheduled at consistent times and allocated to regular staff. Staff completed planned care tasks and remained for the allocated duration of visits, promoting continuity and consistency of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People told us they received the information they needed about their care, including visit schedules and how to make a complaint. The provider had arrangements in place to meet the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and recorded people’s communication needs in their care plans. AIS aims to ensure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss can access and understand information about NHS and adult social care services and receive the communication support they need to use those services. Staff adapted communication to meet individual needs, for example by providing information in larger print or by email. Staff understood how to share information in an accessible way. This included adapting their communication and approach to help people make informed decisions about their care. For example, 1 staff member told us they gave a person additional time to process information so they could understand and respond to questions and requests.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us they knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint. They said senior staff listened to feedback and took action to address issues. For example, 1 person told us their care call time was changed following a discussion with senior staff.

The provider had a complaints procedure that explained how concerns would be managed. The provider had received very few complaints. However, the registered manager demonstrated how feedback was reviewed, investigated, and acted upon. Complaints were acknowledged and responded to appropriately.

The provider sought feedback from people and their relatives through ‘Voice of the Customer’ surveys. Recent feedback was positive, with high levels of satisfaction across key areas of care. Senior staff reviewed responses to identify trends and drive improvements. For example, following feedback from 1 person, the provider updated their care plan to include additional medicines support. People could also share their views during regular care reviews. This demonstrated the provider used feedback to improve care.

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

The provider worked with people to ensure they had access to healthcare services. For example, where people required additional support to arrange or attend healthcare appointments, staff were available to help ensure they could access the services they needed.

The provider had equality and diversity policies in place, which had been developed in line with the Equality Act 2010. Staff had received training on promoting equality and diversity. This training focused on helping staff recognise and challenge bias and discrimination. Staff we spoke with were strongly motivated to treat people as individuals and respect their choices, preferences and beliefs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People told us staff support enabled them to access the community and take part in activities they enjoyed. For example, 1 person said staff supported them to go for walks, while others told us staff encouraged them to attend activities organised at the service, such as bingo sessions.

Staff took steps to ensure activities were inclusive and accessible. They offered a variety of activities and encouraged people who lacked confidence to take part. This helped ensure people had equal opportunities to participate in community life and social activities.

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 inspection, nobody was receiving end of life care. However, the registered manager told us they had previously worked with a local hospice to support a person to remain at the service towards the end of their life, in line with their wishes.

Staff discussed people’s future care preferences during assessments and reviews and recorded this information in care plans. This helped ensure appropriate arrangements were in place to support people in accordance with their wishes if their needs changed.