Sugarman Health and Wellbeing - Watford

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 71 (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.

People’s care plans were personalised based on their assessed needs. These included information on their physical, mental health and sensory needs as well as information about their families and culture. People felt staff understood their needs and wishes. A person said, “I couldn’t fault anyone in respecting my wishes and choices. The carers know I’ve got my own mind and that if I don’t want to stick to something in the care plan that its entirely up to me to do things differently.”

People’s care records included input from other health professionals involved in supporting their needs. The provider’s rota system only allowed staff who had received training in a particular need to be assigned to a care package. People received care from a regular team of staff. A person told us, “The company are always really good at keeping things consistent. Because they know how important that is to me.” A family member said, “Regular carers know and understand my [relative’s] complex needs well.”

The provider considered people’s communication needs as part of their initial assessment. We saw people’s records included information about people’s support needs. At the time of our inspection no service users required information in different formats.

The provider had a complaints policy. At the time of our inspection there had not been any formal complaints. The registered manager had a log where informal complaints had been recorded. We reviewed some of these and saw actions had been taken.

People’s relatives told us concerns were addressed. A relative described issues with a staff member and told us, “To be fair the managers did respond quite quickly and within a few days, [staff member] was moved on.”

The provider had policies to ensure compliance with human rights requirements. This included consideration of the needs of people with protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010, such as age, disability, gender, religion, and ethnicity.

People’s individual needs were considered to ensure equity in their experience of care. The registered manager told us, “The care is so personalised, it is very much built around them. There is nothing to suggest their level of need has an impact on their experience of care.”

This was confirmed with examples shared by another professional who told us, “The care staff have facilitated a trip for a complex tracheostomy ventilated patient and often facilitate our tracheostomy patients to attend football matches, theatre/cinema trips, all of which require an element of planning and effort which not all care agencies take.”

People’s end of life care plans lacked detail about their wishes at the end of their life. Those we reviewed included practical information such as whether they were for resuscitation. However, for a person who had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR ) we found the record did not state where it was kept, and staff were unaware they had one. This meant there was a risk resuscitation could be attempted against the person’s wishes. We fed this back to the registered manager, and they told us supervisions were being held with staff to address this.They found all staff were able to say where the DNACPR record was.