Sandrock Nursing Home

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 the provider had breached Regulation 17: Good governance due to significant failings in leadership and management, and a failure to implement effective systems and processes within the service.

This service scored 25 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff we spoke to told us that they were unsure about the future of the home and that the provider told them the home would improve once uncertainty of the future is resolved. Staff told that the provider should have been investing more into the home. One staff member said, “He has been supportive but now running on a loss and keeping this place on own pocket. He should still be providing level of maintenance.” During the assessment we did not get the opportunity to speak to the provider or anyone who was managing the service.

The provider did not promote a positive culture or enable staff to provide improved care to people. The provider failed to monitor the quality and safety of the service. This increased the potential risk to people because quality concerns had not been identified. The provider demonstrated a lack of understanding about their roles and responsibilities for ensuring the delivery of high-quality care. They showed a lack of understanding in relation to the management of risk and regulatory requirements.

Staff spoke positively about fellow care, kitchen, housekeeping and maintenance staff. Staff felt the provider was not as supportive as they should have been, and they were given limited information about the future of the home. There was not a clear leadership team at the service capable of leading the staff and improving the service. The provider did not engage with inspectors completing this assessment and therefore did not demonstrate an understanding about the significance of the concerns we identified, such as the unsafe environment and poor medicines practices. The provider was not a capable, compassionate or an inclusive leader and let the people living at the home the staff team down.

Insufficient oversight and governance meant we could not be confident about the care, treatment and support that was being delivered at Sandrock Nursing home and whether all the concerns and shortcoming were fully understood by the provider. There was a lack of documentation to evidence how staff, people, and relatives were involved in identifying areas for improvement and development. Staff, people, and relatives had all shared feedback in relation to the home and there was no evidence this had been analysed and used to develop the culture of the home and improve the care and support people received. Inconsistencies in the management meant the oversight of the home had not been robust, quality assurance mechanisms had not been implemented with integrity, openness, and honesty. Staff support and wellbeing had not been consistently supported and the provider had failed to ensure oversight. The provider did not engage with inspectors completing this assessment.

The provider had not actively promoted staff to feel empowered to drive improvements. Whilst some staff said they could speak with the provider, this did not lead to any meaningful changes or discussions. Whilst we saw staff had completed 1 to 1 meetings and some concerns had been acknowledged the concerns about the future of the home were not addressed in a meaningful way. We saw that there was limited documentation of meetings between staff and the provider.

The provider had failed to ensure they implemented a system by which communication could be shared openly and honestly with the staff team. Whilst staff had taken opportunities to provide feedback, the provider had failed to address concerns and work with staff to address and drive improvements in the home.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

There was a lack of provider oversight of the service. Staff could not tell inspectors with clarity who was managing the service on day to day basis and this led to significant shortfalls and people had been put at risk of harm from the concerns highlighted throughout this inspection.

The provider continues with non-compliance of regulations while operating the service and has a history of non-compliance with the last 4 inspections all rated inadequate. Processes were not in place to effectively manage and monitor the quality of the service. Although the provider was aware of all the issues identified in the inspections and the previous 3 inspections they had not taken any meaningful action to make the significant improvements required and in particular, the condition of exterior and interior of the premises. The provider did not engage with the inspection team and did not provide any meaningful evidence that concerns raised would be improved or addressed in a meaningful way. During the assessment process we issued a section 64 notice that requires the provider to give the Commission specified information and documentation under Section 64 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The provider did not provide all the information requested.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.