Sabin Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This key question has been rated good. We reviewed 6 quality statements for this key question. Care plans guided staff on how to support people and their preferences. Staff worked together to give evidenced based care.

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.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

The registered manager completed a pre admission visit and documentation before care commenced. Staff reviewed peoples records before commencing any care activities and records were reviewed regularly. Staff showed a good understanding of people and their needs.

People's needs were assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure health, care, wellbeing and communication needs were met. People's care needs were fully assessed prior to admission and reviewed regularly. Although people and their relatives were involved, this was not evidenced in all care records.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

Staff worked together as a team to deliver consistently safe care to people in line with legislation. A staff member told us “Yes, care plans are updated when things change, for example, when someone starts new medication.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Care plans contained detailed information about how people preferred staff to meet their personal care needs and wishes.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

The registered manager and staff told us how they worked as a team together and with other healthcare professionals. A staff member told us “The teams communication is good, unfortunately not usually face to face but over the phone.”

Feedback from partners and stakeholders was positive and no concerns or comments were raised.

The provider worked in partnership with various external professionals such as district nurses, GPs and pharmacies. People’s care records guided staff when to contact external professionals.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

Staff supported people to have control over their own lives. Staff supported people to make healthier meal choices and encouraged fluid input.

Systems and processes did not always effectively monitor people’s health and well-being. Although there was support plans in place which included details regarding wellbeing. Records did not always evidence how the provider supported choice.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

Staff told us the safety and quality of the care people received had improved. They told us when issues were identified action was taken which led to improved outcomes for people. However, we found processes in place did not support this.

Systems in place to monitor the outcomes for people were not robust. Although care plans detailed how people liked to be cared for and guided staff in how to support them, risk assessments lacked person centred details.

Feedback from people and their family was positive. Although we were unable to talk to people who used the service and their relatives, feedback forms evidenced no concerns were raised and overall people were happy with their care.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of gaining consent to care and treatment. Managers and staff recently completed Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) training and were aware of their duties and responsibilities in relation to the MCA and DoLs.

People’s care records documented their consent to treatment and offered staff guidance of when to ask for consent. Although staff we spoke to could give examples of when to ask for consent, they did not document this in daily records.