Care and Support Service Sandford Station

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care plans reflected their needs and preferences. They included information about their health conditions, support needed to promote wellbeing and any communication needs. They gave clear guidance to staff about how to support people, and people told us staff knew them and their needs well. One person told us, “They help me with my health needs, they understand.”

Care plans were regularly reviewed with people and/or their relatives depending on people’s preferences. Staff completed care notes which recorded how people were on their visits and if any concerns were noted and any actions taken.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff and managers were proactive in identifying any changes in people’s health and raising concerns as necessary.

People were mainly independent in managing their own nutrition and hydration. Their care plans recorded any support they may need and their known food and drink preferences.

Staff assisted some people to prepare meals and drinks as part of their support. Staff also supported people to visit the on-site restaurant for their meals where they wished. People and relatives were satisfied with the support they received. Comments included, “For breakfast they give me choices. I do have the same thing every day. They make my porridge the way I like and a cup of tea” and “Sandford station has a restaurant; they can walk to the restaurant. The carers remind them and make sure they have lunch. They encourage them to eat. They record their meals. They fill in a form and I look at it.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Managers and staff used various methods to communicate. Weekly updates were shared with staff which provided updates on any changes to people’s health or care needs. There was a system in place to handover information using a communication book and through an electronic system, and staff felt this worked well.

The service had access to internal provider specialist teams, such as an enriching lives team. The provider also had their own physiotherapists and occupational therapists, which were available to support people for an additional fee.

The service worked closely with external teams such as GPs and district nurses.

A health professional told us, “Their care team are consistently proactive, strong advocates for their residents, and liaise closely with the practice to support their patients' health needs.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People managed their routine medical appointments and medication reviews; some were supported by their relatives. A GP regularly visited the service, and people were able to see them when they requested.

Staff completed observational documentation where they had concerns people’s health may be deteriorating, and supported people to seek medical attention when they were concerned.

People and relatives told us, managers and staff understood their health needs and supported them to seek any medical support they required. Comments included, “If I was not feeling well, they would contact the GP” and “They picked up that they were not well with a urinary infection. They got in touch with the surgery and arranged a test.”

People were able access exercise classes, social activities and clubs within the building.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care plans recorded the goals they wanted to achieve and staff interventions to support them with their goals.

People were able to have care provided to them flexibly, this included to support them returning home following being in hospital, or with additional welfare checks after a fall.

The manager shared examples of how support from staff had improved outcomes for people. For example, one person had been supported to return to live independently after spending time living in the provider’s care home on the same site. Another person had been able to reduce the amount of care they needed as their independence increased.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

At the time of our assessment people were mainly able to consent to their care and treatment. People’s care plans recorded important information such as if the person had capacity, and any support they may need with decision making.

Some people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, for example in relation to medicines administration. Where this was the case, mental capacity assessments were completed, and best interest decisions made. People, relatives and health and social care professionals were involved in these decisions where appropriate. Assessments and decisions were clearly documented and had been agreed as the least restrictive option.

People and relatives told us staff sought people’s consent before providing any support. Staff were aware of people’s rights and respected their decisions. Staff comments included, “I always get verbal consent for anything I do” and “We always presume the resident has capacity, care plans are as detailed as possible, and we make sure people have choice.”