Sandbanks Resource Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We identified one breach of the legal regulations. The provider had quality assurance processes in place, but these did not always identify where action needed to be taken. Staff felt there were issues with staffing levels when care requiring 2 staff members was being provided as well as raising concerns with the level of agency staff and frequency of staff meetings. The provider worked in partnership with other organisations. The registered manager kept up to date with legislation and best practice.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff member told us in general they felt the service was well led but they had concerns about the level of agency staff usage and that staff meetings should be more frequent. The staff members felt they worked well together. Staff demonstrated ab understanding of the values of the service with comments including, “Treat people as we would like to be treated. with dignity and respect. Freedom of choice: preferences and needs”, and “Treat fairly, equally, choice, freedom, acknowledge they are individuals.”.

There were staff handover meeting three times a day to discuss any issues or concerns relating to people’s care on each area of the home where people lived. There were team meeting every 3 months and minutes were taken and circulated.

We received a range of comments from staff when asked if they felt supported in their role. Most staff members we spoke with felt supported by the registered manager and other senior staff, but other staff felt that when there were issues identified these were not always responded to.

The provider had a management structure in place including 2 assistant managers and 6 senior care workers to provide support for the staff and people living at the home. Information on good practice and from lessons learned was shared with staff through team meetings and supervision meetings.

Staff understood how to raise any concerns they had in relation to the care being provided. A staff member commented, “If I had a problem, I would go to my manager first and if not getting anywhere I would go higher, involve the union. Speak to my senior.” The registered manager stated there was an open-door policy and staff could speak with them when they need to.

The provider had a range of systems to support staff to raise concerns relating to the care being provided which included handover and supervision meetings and team meetings. Information from these meetings was shared and discussed with staff.

Staff felt that there was a good mix of staff at the home with a staff member commenting, “Yeah, I think they have a mixture of people which is good. There is no bullying, discrimination etc I would speak up if there was.” The registered manager confirmed the staffing at the service reflected the local community.

The provider had a range of policies relating to equal opportunities and equality and diversity. The registered manager explained the recruitment process included blind shortlisting to support equality and diversity in recruitment.

There was a clear management structure within the home and staff were able to describe what they believed their responsibilities were. However, staff and leaders were not always aware of their full responsibilities in relation to the provision of safe and effective care.

The provider had a range of processes for the monitoring of the quality of the service provided but these did not always indicate where documents had not been completed and where improvements could be implemented. The checks carried out on care plans and risk assessments did not identify that risk assessments for specific issues had not always been completed and mental capacity assessments with best interest decisions had not always been carried out. The audits of the administration of medicines did not identify that information related to the administration of covert medicines and when a medicine is prescribed to be administered when required. The provider also had regular quality assurance checks reviewing the records of the care provided completed by staff and checks on the home’s environment to ensure it was safe.

The registered manager confirmed they worked in partnership with a range of organisations to ensure people received any additional care and support required.

The provider had developed relationships with healthcare professional, social services and external groups such as religious groups to meet the identified support needs of people.

The registered manager explained they kept up to date with best practice and legislation through their membership of Skills for care and reviewing the CQC reports for other services. The audits which were in place did not identify the issues noted in this report as there was not always learning from the checks in place.

People and their relatives were supported to provide feedback on the care being provided and the home environment through an annual survey and meetings. Staff could provide feedback through supervision meetings and team meetings and a survey for the staff was being developed. The provider had a range of policies and procedures which were reviewed regularly which provided guidance on legislation and current best practice but some of these were not always followed as identified during the assessment.