Sahara Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This service was effective. People were supported to maximise their independence, choice and control over their lives. The staff delivered person centred care and that restrictions in place were always in the best interest of the person.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the home. We saw copies of preadmission forms completed for people prior to them receiving care. Where possible, people themselves were involved in this process and where appropriate people’s families were consulted throughout the process. The provider’s initial assessment document included a ‘scene setting’ section which gave a description of who the person is, their history and life journey to that point. It assessed all aspects of their independence skills, their health and medical needs. People’s social relationships and their interests were also taken into account during the assessment. We also saw people’s likes and dislikes were considered, and risks were identified.

Staff told us people’s needs were continually assessed and with the use of their extensive knowledge of people they were able to identify when needs changed. The registered manager told us people’s needs and any changes were discussed as part of their team meetings. Each person had a keyworker and we were told they reviewed people’s needs and discussed this with the wider team.

The provider had effective processes in place to assess and manage people’s needs. At the front of each care file each person had an evaluation of needs sheet. There was an explanation of the evaluation, who was involved and how it would be communicated to each person. We saw evidence of systems used which continually assessed and monitored people’s needs. For example, we saw a range of assessments and monitoring tools to meet people’s health needs. We saw assessments with regards to the skills people were developing, these included cooking and making drinks.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We observed people being politely asked each time when they required support. The approach by staff was with warmth and respect for the person. We saw a financial arrangement regarding a small sum of money requested by a person each day which was initiated by them, believed to be a way of exercising their control over their money. This was a very well managed situation with an agreement the person would be given a small sum of their own money each day regardless of whether they were to spend it or not. This had been based on a long-standing verbal agreement. However, following our assessment, the provider told us they were considering how best to document this transaction in writing so both the home and the person supported could be safe in the knowledge there was written proof with regards to this arrangement. We saw a range of mental capacity assessments which described the support people needed to make choices. Within each care plan we saw signed agreements where a specific aspect of support had been discussed and agreed by the person. As part of our visit, we spoke to families of the people living in the home. They told us staff spoke with them each time consent was needed before any form of treatment happened. They told us of the constant dialogue they have with the home with regards to decision making in relation to care and treatment. The families told us how the forms of communication, especially the phone calls and monthly reports. During out visit to the home we saw evidence of staff asking consent before care was delivered. We saw people spoken to in a polite, respectful manner about how they would be supported. We heard staff offering choices about what people wanted to do when they looked unsure. We heard staff ask people if they wanted support to do things for themselves such as pour their drinks.

During our visit we asked staff how they would obtain consent for the people they supported. In the event of a person requiring a procedure such as an operation, staff told us how they would use a range of visual communication aids to assist the person’s understanding. They also talked about how they might show the person where they were going and talk through what would happen to them.

The provider had implemented a range of consent documents for each person. We saw decision making processes for people’s financial, personal care and nutritional support. Where decisions had to be made with regards to a person’s treatment, other professionals and families were involved in this process.