CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sandsground
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely, with safe medicines management, staff training and risk assessments in place. There were four vacancies, some agency staff were used, and gaps in some employment records had been identified and addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support based on assessments of their needs and preferences. Staff had relevant training, people received suitable meals and health support, and the service followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were observed interacting positively with staff and receiving compassionate, respectful support. Staff encouraged people to take part in daily tasks and become more independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People were supported with relationships, activities, holidays and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and senior staff understood their responsibilities and used audits, monitoring visits and action plans to oversee quality and safety. Relatives and professionals gave positive feedback, while the manager was working to improve staff consistency.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Sandsground was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with staff vacancies and some employment-record gaps being addressed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection by one inspector on 17 February 2020. The inspector spoke with one person, staff, relatives and a social care professional. They reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home provided personal care for five people with learning and physical disabilities. Inspectors found people were relaxed with staff and treated kindly. People were supported to make choices, build independence, communicate in ways that suited them, and take part in activities at home and in the community.
Medicines, risks, infection control and the premises were managed safely. Staff had relevant training and worked with health and social care professionals. Complaints were handled appropriately, and audits were used to identify and address improvements.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall and question rating as the previous inspection, published on 26 September 2017.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make daily choices and develop practical skills. Staff used a positive approach that balanced independence with safety.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw people relaxed and interacting positively with staff. Staff encouraged people to do things for themselves and recognised when they were becoming distressed.
“Interactions we observed showed people were relaxed with staff, expressed themselves freely and were supported in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
People took part in activities at home and in the community, based on their interests. A day care organiser had been employed since the previous inspection to help develop meaningful activities.
“Staff organised activities and holidays in line with people's likes and dislikes.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicine records checked by inspectors were accurate, and staff had training and competency checks for managing medicines.
“Staff had received training in the safe management of medicines, and their competency had been assessed.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The manager and provider reviewed accidents and medicine errors and took action to reduce future risks.
“We saw where medicine errors occurred, the registered manager took steps to ensure lessons were learnt.” from the report
Staff vacancies and changes
needs fixingThere were four staff vacancies and agency staff were used for some shifts. Relatives had noticed changes in the staff team, although they were confident people's needs were being met.
“There were four staff vacancies, with two of these posts having been recently recruited to.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorInspectors found gaps in some employment records. The manager addressed these shortly after the inspection and said staff records would be reviewed.
“We identified some gaps in employment which the registered manager addressed, shortly after the inspection, with the staff members.” from the report
Making the home more homely
minorOne staff member felt the home could be more homely. The manager planned ongoing improvements, and a sensory room was still being developed.
“One staff member said the home could be more homely.” from the report
- 01How many of the four staff vacancies have now been filled, and how often are agency staff still used?
- 02How do you make sure people receive consistent support when staff change or agency staff work shifts?
- 03What review was completed of employment records after the gaps identified by inspectors?
- 04What progress has been made with making the home more homely and completing the sensory room?
- 05How are medicine errors monitored and used to check staff competency?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall and question ratings were also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 2020 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind, individualised care and strong management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 August 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed four people's care, and checked records, training, medicines and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, and were supported by trained staff.
People were treated with respect and encouraged to make choices and develop independence. They had activities based on their interests, links with the local community, and support to maintain relationships.
The home had a registered manager and systems to monitor quality. Inspectors noted that some people could not fully share their views because of communication difficulties, so they also relied on observations, relatives and staff.
Safe care
Risks were assessed and managed while people were supported to remain as independent as possible. Staff were trained to recognise abuse and manage behaviour safely.
“The provider had identified risks affecting people's safety and had put appropriate measures in place to reduce the risk of harm.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff training was up to date and included safeguarding, moving and handling, first aid, the Mental Capacity Act and infection control.
“People's needs were met by staff who had the relevant skills, competencies and knowledge.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff taking time to talk with people and preserving their privacy and dignity. People were supported to make everyday choices.
“People were treated with respect and their dignity was preserved at all times.” from the report
Meaningful lives
Activities reflected people's interests and included community trips, hobbies, social events and support to visit relatives.
“People had access to a wide range of pursuits which were meaningful to people and suited their individual interests.” from the report
Strong management
The management team was described as approachable and supportive. Regular audits and feedback were used to monitor the service.
“Effective governance systems, such as regular audits, had been undertaken and had enabled the registered manager and staff to continuously improve the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently help each person communicate choices, consent and complaints if they cannot communicate verbally?
- 02How are behaviour support plans reviewed, and what positive approaches are used when someone becomes anxious or distressed?
- 03What staffing levels are provided on each shift, and how do you maintain continuity when regular staff are unavailable?
- 04How are people's activities, hobbies, community links and personal goals reviewed and kept up to date?
- 05How are medicines checked, including medicines prescribed to be taken when necessary, and how are any errors handled?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 September 2017 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 Sandsground
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 2010.
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
44 live-in carers within about an hour of Swindon
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 £990 to £1,280 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough 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.