CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sandbanks Resource Centre
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor improvements made during the inspection.
Inspectors visited on 25 and 27 February 2019. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, trained staff, healthcare support, personalised care plans and activities.
Inspectors found a few issues. Records did not clearly explain why some medicines were hidden in food or drink, and some people said staffing could be short at times. The home introduced new forms for hidden medicines during the inspection and was reviewing clearer bathroom signs.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind, polite and caring. Inspectors saw staff supporting people in a kind and caring way and respecting their privacy and dignity.
“We saw care worker supporting people in a kind and caring way and they had a good understanding of how people wanted their care provided.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded how people wanted their daily care, meals and routines provided. These plans were reviewed regularly and with families and social workers each year.
“People's care plans identified how they wished their care to be provided by care workers.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had completed the provider's required training. New staff had an induction and shadowed experienced workers, with regular supervision and annual appraisals.
“New care workers completed an induction programme and shadowed an experienced care worker when they started their role at the home.” from the report
Activities and choice
People had access to activities seven days a week, as well as events at the neighbouring day centre. They could choose whether to take part.
“There was an activity coordinator on duty seven days a week at the home and people could also access events at the day centre next to the home.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider checked care plans, medicines, incidents, complaints, safeguarding records and staff training. The report says identified issues were addressed.
“The provider had a range of quality assurance processes in place to monitor the care provided.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingRecords for some medicines hidden in food or drink did not clearly state why this was being done. The manager introduced new forms by the second day of the inspection.
“We saw the records for people who had their medicines administered covertly (medicines hidden in food or drink) did not clearly record the reason” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingSome people said there were times when there were not enough staff, especially when staff were off sick. The report also says staffing was planned around people's support needs.
“Yes [there is enough staff], but sometimes they're short staffed when staff are off sick” from the report
Bathroom signs
minorCommunal toilets near the lounges did not have signs to help people identify them. The manager said the home was reviewing dementia-friendly guidance.
“The communal toilets located near the lounge in each unit did not have any signage to enable people to identify it as a bathroom.” from the report
- 01How do you keep staffing levels safe when care workers are off sick?
- 02Do the current records clearly explain why any person's medicines are hidden in food or drink?
- 03Have clearer signs been added to the communal toilets since the inspection?
- 04How often are my relative's care plan and risk assessments reviewed?
- 05How will my relative and family be involved in reviewing care and making complaints?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC areas, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safer care and improvements since the last inspection, but staffing, medicines records and management arrangements still needed attention.
Inspectors visited the home on 12, 13 and 14 July 2016. The first day was unannounced and the following days were announced. They spoke with people living there, relatives and care workers. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection, which had been rated Requires Improvement. These included staffing arrangements, pressure ulcer risk assessments, staff training, meals, activities and quality checks.
There were still some issues to watch. Two medicines records did not show that a prescribed cream had been given on one occasion. Four people waited more than 30 minutes for breakfast because they needed help to eat. The home also had no registered manager in post, although an interim manager was running the service and recruitment was under way.
Improved staffing arrangements
The home had recruited additional care workers and changed how staff were allocated. Inspectors saw staff available to respond when extra help was needed.
“During the inspection we saw that there were enough care workers to provide appropriate care based on the identified support levels for the people within the unit.” from the report
Safer care planning
The home assessed risks such as pressure ulcers, mobility, nutrition and moving and handling. Care plans gave staff guidance when risks were identified.
“We saw a range of risk assessments were in place for people using the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about care workers. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy, offering choices and encouraging people to remain as independent as possible.
“During the inspection we saw the care workers treated people in a caring manner and respected each person's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Improved activities
The home had introduced an activities room, unit-based activities and activity schedules. Inspectors saw people taking part in crafts, cards and garden activities.
“At the inspection on 12, 13 and 14 July 2016 we saw that improvements had been made in relation to the range of activities and how they were provided.” from the report
Better quality monitoring
The provider used audits covering care plans, medicines, infection control and other parts of the service. These checks gave more useful information than at the previous inspection.
“At the inspection on 12, 13 and 14 July 2016 we saw that the audits carried out now provided appropriate information to identify issues with the quality of care provided.” from the report
Remaining staff vacancies
needs fixingThe home still needed to recruit more permanent care workers and reduce its use of agency staff. A relative and care workers said some areas could be left unattended or become difficult when staff were busy.
“We still need to recruit more care workers so we cover day by day” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingTwo medicines administration records did not show that a prescribed cream had been recorded as given on one occasion during the previous month. The issue was raised and the records were reviewed before the inspection ended.
“We saw the MAR charts for two people which indicated that care workers had not recorded the administration of a prescribed cream on one occasion during the previous month.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. An interim manager was acting in the role while the provider recruited.
“At the time of the inspection the service did not have a registered manager in post.” from the report
Menu information
minorMenus were displayed but were not easy for people to access. The provider was reviewing the menus and planned to add photographs to help people choose.
“We recommend the provider reviews guidance on appropriate menus for people using the service.” from the report
- 01How many permanent care worker vacancies remain, and how often are agency workers currently used?
- 02What changes were made after the inspection to make sure every prescribed cream and other medicine is recorded correctly?
- 03How do you now make sure people who need help to eat do not wait for their meals?
- 04Has a registered manager now been appointed, and who is responsible for the home until that happens?
- 05Have the menus been changed to make choices easier and to provide the healthy, nutritious options mentioned in the report?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, with the first day unannounced and the following days announced. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Sandbanks Resource Centre
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 May 2012.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hounslow
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,270 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.