Archived: Sandrock Nursing Home

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 service under a new provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had not always assessed people's care needs, and we found these were not always up to date. Care plans did not detail environmental risks and missed key information. Although staff confirmed peoples care plans contained examples of assessments of people’s needs and risks, for example, risk of falls and people’s mobility the provider could not be assured these were appropriate or detailed the risks identified with the premises and environment.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. For example, staff did not have access to accurate information to follow regarding people’s bathing and showering needs. One person had specific guidance about wanting to bath regularly, however the recently refurbished bathroom was not appropriately adapted, and people were unable utilise bathing facilities.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. The provider had not implemented systems and processes for staff to communicate well between each other. For example, staff continually reported issues around the environment with the concerns not taken seriously. Staff maintained good communication links with local health and care services and shared and received information about people’s care needs appropriately.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. The provider did not empower staff to support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The outside garden areas were in poor state and in need of immediate maintenance for people to enjoy and get fresh air and people were dependent upon staff assistance to leave the building. This created limited opportunities for people to be supported with a healthier lifestyle.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. We saw little evidence people’s health and wellbeing was managed or reviewed, and this demonstrated the provider was not committed to supporting people to improve their care. However, Care plans showed the correct use of monitoring tools, such as Waterlow scores used for assessing the risk of pressure ulcers in people. Staff used the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) scores to assess a person's risk of malnutrition and weight loss. Staff told us they had time to spend with people on an individual basis, and we observed this during the assessment.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff had received training in mental capacity and consent. Staff we spoke with described how they ensured people were able to make choices and how they supported people who were unable to make decisions due to their cognitive impairment. We observed staff asking people for their consent. For example, we observed staff used people’s names and ask them what they would like to do.