Sandpiper Care Home

“Safeguarding, medicines management, infection control and the environment were safe and well managed. Systems for transitions and risk management worked well. However, staffing levels and some gaps in skills meant people were not always supported consistently at times of distress. Records and staff knowledge about responding to distress needed improvement, although action had started.”

“People’s needs were assessed and care was based on evidence and good partnership working. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and consent was managed well. Monitoring systems focused more on tasks than on people’s experiences and outcomes. Records were sometimes inconsistent and relatives did not always feel involved in reviews.”

“Most people experienced kind, respectful care and staff were observed to be warm and supportive. People were treated as individuals and supported to maintain choice, independence and control and gave positive feedback about their care. However, the language used in some records and by some staff was not always respectful. Support to anticipate and reduce emotional distress was not always effective and staff wellbeing was not consistently supported.”

“Person-centred care was promoted and coordinated, with good information sharing and accessible communication. People generally felt listened to. However, feedback and involvement did not always lead to clear improvements and outcomes were not consistently shared with people. The service planned well for future and end of life needs, though staff training in this area was limited.”

“Leaders promoted an open and inclusive vision and worked well with partners. Governance systems identified risks and learning and leaders responded quickly to concerns. However, the culture was not fully embedded. Some staff did not feel confident to speak up, felt unfairly treated and did not always feel supported. Governance and improvement work did not clearly show how actions improved people’s experiences or supported staff wellbeing, so it was not clear if care improved quality of life.”