Sandbanks Resource Centre

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 31 January 2025 (assessment visit 5 August 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   –No rating No rating

   We identified 2 breaches of the legal regulation Risk assessments and risk management plans had not always been completed to provide staff with guidance on how to reduce possible risks. The provider had a process to identify if people could consent to their care, but this was not always followed to ensure support followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The records relating to the administration of medicines did not always include guidance on covert medicines administration, medicines prescribed to be taken as and when required and staff did not always complete records in a timely manner. People knew how to raise any concerns with the provider. The provider had a process for recording and investigating incidents and accidents and identifying possible actions. Staff completed infection prevention and control training and had access to personal protective equipment.

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the effective key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of good practice since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good.

   People were involved in the creation and review of their care plan. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home. People care plans identified how the person could be supported to make decisions and included information on if the person had a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decision in place.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the caring key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of good practice since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. People received support to remain as independent as possible and people’s care plan included guidance for staff on how to support independence.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of both good and poor practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of both good practice and a concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. Some people did not feel they were supported to maintain their links with their faith group, but the registered manager confirmed that representatives from these religious groups visited the home. Staff completed training on equality and diversity to support the way they provided care to meet people’s needs.

5. Well-led

   GGood Good

   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.