Sandpiper Care Home

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

Person centred care was promoted and people were supported to be involved in how their care was planned and delivered. While records showed people’s views had been sought, not everyone felt fully involved in decisions about their care. Care plans were based on assessed needs and preferences and people had opportunities to share feedback about their care through resident’s meetings. One relative told us, “The staff organise lots of activities and also do some exercises with them. It is a two way thing with staff and they know each other well.” Another relative said, “Staff take [my family member] out for a walk, sometimes for a cup of coffee. Sandpiper Care Home is right on the edge of a village with shops, cafes and a park. On remembrance Sunday they gave [my family member] a poppy to place on the memorial in the park. They really like that, being part of the local community."

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. Care was generally well coordinated and often supported continuity for people using the service. The service worked with other professionals and organisations to support people’s care and shared information to help reduce gaps when more than one provider was involved. Two relatives told us about how the registered manager had supported them with understanding funding processes so their family members could stay at Sandpiper Care Home. This meant many people experienced joined up care and ongoing support. One person told us, “This is a lovely place to stay."

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. A relative told us, “When [my family member] first went there staff organised speech and language specialists to assess what could be done to help them. The specialists came up with lots of recommendations some of which helped the staff and [my family member] communicate.” The registered manager and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Accessible Information Standard and people’s communication needs were recognised and responded to. Staff used different methods of communication, including spoken and written information, gestures and objects of reference to help people understand information that mattered to them. Posters were shown around the service to inform people of their rights and upcoming events. Relatives told us staff kept them informed. One relative said, “The communication between us and staff is excellent. They deserve a ten out of 10.” Staff took time to explain care and support in ways people could understand which helped people feel informed and involved in decisions about their care.

Overall, people told us they did feel listened to and felt their views were respected when they shared feedback about their care. However, some people did not feel their concerns were being treated seriously. People’s views were visible in meeting minutes and compliments about the service from relatives were shared, which showed the service valued positive feedback. However, feedback could have been used more effectively to drive improvement and there was limited evidence to show how people’s ideas or concerns consistently led to changes in care or where outcomes were fed back to people, which limited meaningful involvement and co-production.

People were able to access the service fairly and without discrimination and support was provided in a timely way when needed. Systems were in place to help promote equal access to care and reasonable adjustments were considered to reduce potential barriers. Staff demonstrated awareness of factors that could affect equitable access, including barriers to using local health and community services, and understood how to raise and escalate concerns if access issues arose. These arrangements helped ensure people could access care, support and treatment in line with their needs.

Care quality was mostly equitable and people told us they experienced similar care and outcomes regardless of their needs or background. Staff understood the importance of reducing inequality and could describe actions they would take to support people fairly and address potential barriers. Care planning considered individual needs and supported consistent experiences across the service. However, the service did not routinely or systematically seek people’s experiences in enough detail to identify patterns, inequalities or specific barriers for people more at risk of poorer outcomes. This limited the provider’s ability to analyse trends and take targeted action to further improve equity in experience and outcomes.

The service planned ahead to support people with future needs and important life changes in a timely and person-centred way. Risks were identified early and plans supported sustainability and the delivery of safe care. People had been supported to identify and record their wishes in relation to illness and the end of their life. This information was clearly documented in care plans and shared with relatives where appropriate. Some staff told us they had not had specific training in end-of-life care and had developed their skills through experience and observing others. Further structured training would help staff feel more confident and support more consistent care at this important time. Despite this staff worked to support people with pain relief, dignity and comfort at the end of life, including oral care. One relative told us how their family member had been admitted on an end-of-life care pathway but within 4 days their family member had improved. They told us how their family member improved quickly with kind and attentive care, good food and supportive staff, giving the relatives confidence and reassurance. Another relative told us how staff had supported them to prepare their family member for their funeral. The offer of support meant a lot to the relatives who told us, “Staff did [my family member] proud."