Sandhall Park

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Peoples care was personalised to their individual needs, staff knew people well and offered support to suit people’s preferences. Care plans described people’s needs and were written in a person-centred way. While some of these care plans still needed development in some areas to provide more detail, a consistent staffing team ensured people were cared for and that any changes to need was identified quickly.

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.

The service worked well with partners and were able to source additional support when people’s needs changed. Managers and staff had a good understanding of how to support people with dementia and provided training in this area to reflect the diverse needs of the people. Family members and people told us there was continuity of care with the staff team. One family member said, “There are always staff and carers about. What I like about it is the continuity of staff, which means they are familiar with the people.”

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

People and families told us they were kept up to date with any changes in the service and with changes of their family members needs. Newsletters had been sent out to family members with updates and staff would call them at the earliest opportunity if an incident occurred. One family member told us, when asked about the communication in the service, “It’s very good. They always contact me regarding anything.”

People’s preferred way of communicating had been recorded within the care plans and information was provided in an accessible way for those who needed this support. For example, easy read documents were available to people who needed these.

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 family members told us they felt confident sharing their views with all staff members and could approach management at any time to feedback about care. Surveys were sent out by the service to collect feedback from family members. Resident and staff meetings were held on a regular basis to collect ideas and give people the opportunity to raise concerns. The provider had a complaints procedure in place which was easily accessible to people if they needed it. The registered manager would investigate any concerns and complaints received.

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

There were no barriers to people accessing the service or their care and support. Out of hours support was in place, covered by the management team to ensure staff always had access to 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. Care staff had undertaken equality and diversity training. Staff, people and family members did not identify any concerns about discrimination.

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.

People’s wishes, if they were able to make them, and those of their relatives, where appropriate, were recorded and met. People were supported at the end of their life by staff who had been trained to do so, and who knew them well.