Sugarman Health and Wellbeing - Dorset

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 plans provided personalised guidance for staff. People and relatives, where appropriate, told us they were involved in care planning and regular reviews. One person said, “We sat together and went through what would be expected and what is acceptable.” A relative told us, “I am [person’s] biggest advocate. I am very vocal in what I feel is best for [person]. I make sure there is a routine. That they learn [person’s] little quirks and when to step away.” Staff told us they reported any changes to the office and liaised with external professionals when needed.

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.

People and relatives told us staff understood people’s needs and communicated well with them and external professionals. A relative told us, “Staff are so knowledgeable. They take things to me and let the nurse know as well. [Person] is very complex.” A professional said, “Staff demonstrate a good understanding of people’s varying and complex needs.”

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

People’s communication needs were documented in their care plans. We received positive feedback about the way the service communicated with people, staff and external professionals. We were assured this service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a law to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information they can easily read or understand.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and staff knew who to raise concerns with and felt they would be addressed. The provider actively sought feedback from people, their relatives and staff via surveys. This feedback was used to shape the service.

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

Care and support requirements were assessed and agreed with people prior to using the provider. People and their relatives, where appropriate, completed regular reviews with staff to ensure people had access to the care and support they needed. Staff supported people to access their community. For example, the cinema, education setting, walks and for meals out. The provider had an on-call service which enabled people to access care outside of usual working hours.

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.

Relatives were positive about the care and support provided. Staff completed training in equality, diversity and human rights and told us they had enough information to ensure people received safe care. Staff practice was checked through spot checks, team meetings and supervisions.

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 decisions about emergency treatment were recorded. People and relatives were provided an opportunity to discuss and plan end of life wishes. At the time of this inspection, the provider was not supporting anyone who was receiving care during the final stages of life.