Sandgate Manor

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 57 (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 was improving how people were at the centre of their care. People told us they were involved in making decision about their support. For example, one person enjoyed gardening and told us they were supported to grow fruit and vegetables which they enjoyed. Another person was supported to spend time with a loved one at the service. Staff had taken action to address barriers to these visits and provide the person with this support.

However, there were still areas where improvement could be continued. People had keyworkers. However, keyworker meetings were not always taking place for people who did not have one to one support in place. People could raise issues with the registered manager. However, not everyone benefited from the proactive support of having regular keyworker meetings.

Staff turnover impacted on continuity for some people and feedback regarding continuity of care was mixed. Some people had complex communication support needs which was impacted by staff continuity as staff needed time to learn how people expressed themselves. Some people felt staff knew them well and supported people well with their communication needs. Relatives told us, “Staff know [my relative] well and how they want to spend their day and can identify when they are distressed.” And, “Staff always know what [my relative] is saying and are able to give them a voice and help them communicate.” Other relatives told us, “Everyone there seems nice, pleasant and helpful but it takes a while for [my relative] to get to know [staff] and them to know [my relative].” And, “I think they’re pretty good, [my relatives] speech isn’t always articulate, and it might be hard to understand [them], that all comes back to staff knowing [them] and the [staff] turnover.”

The registered manager was aware that continuity was an area where some improvement was still needed and told us they were working to promote this when recruiting new staff. People were involved in staff recruitment processes. The management involved people in recruitment of new staff so people had a voice in who was providing them with support.

Information was available to people as required. Most people needed information to be provided verbally, and staff told us they did so.

People were also able to speak to the registered manager The registered manager had discussed areas with people such as people’s right to chose where they lived. Staff used a variety of tools to support people to communicate. However, people’s communication plans lacked details in some areas to set out in more detail how people communicated and what staff had learnt so that this knowledge was shared with newer staff. For example, there was a lack of information about people’s non verbal forms of communication such as gestures and facial expressions.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, there were areas where the system for feedback needed improvement. There was a complaints system in place to capture formal complaints. There had only been one complaint recorded this year which had been actioned.

People’s moods were recorded in their daily notes which at times did include what action was taken to address any concerns however, this system of recording had limited the providers ability to monitor trends and themes as complaints were not always clear.

There were meetings for residents where they discussed issues such as planned trips or events. There were also surveys for people and staff. However, feedback on the actions previously taken could be clearer. For example, when people had feedback about wanting more activities, whilst action had been taken the recorded response was ‘We are looking into options to give you more activities and choices’ and there were no updates recorded at the following meetings.

Most relatives told us they had no cause to complain. One relative told us, “The home are very good at communicating, we have never had a reason to make a complaint but would approach Manager/Head of Care and feel very comfortable in doing so.”

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to access the services and treatment they needed. For example, one person had been supported to access a new wheelchair as the one they were using was no longer comfortable. People had access to dental care. If people needed to go to hospital or a medical appointment they were supported to do so where appropriate. People had access to routine health appointments and tests. Where people needed staff to advocate for them during healthcare provision the service provided this support.

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.

Staff were aware of people’s needs in terms of equality and areas had improved. For example, one person was now being better supported with their relationship with a person who did not live at the service. However, there were still areas of the service which were not accessible to people who used wheelchairs such as the kitchen. The provider had identified some people needed support to move to more independent settings as and people had been supported to move to improve their equity in experience.

People now had more opportunities to access the community. However, this was still a work in progress and some people were still establishing what they enjoyed doing. One relative told us, “Staff support [my relative] to go to barbers. They are now going out and doing their own shopping, going to pub…which is a big thing for them.” Another relative told us they would like to see more support for some people to go out in the evening. Other people were going out in the evening if they chose to do so.

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.

Some people had chosen to make plans for the end of their life. For example, one person had put in place a funeral plan. Another person had completed a RESPECT form. This sets out what emergency care and treatment a person wants in the future should the need arise. There was clear information about what treatment the person did or did not want and where they wanted to be if they were at the end of life. Other people did not yet want to have these discussions or put plans in place. People were also assisted to access support if they were experiencing loss or grief.