Sunnyview House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

During our assessment of this key question, we found people felt listened to by staff and were supported with their diverse needs. Some people felt more work was required on the types of meals being offered and having more variety. We received mixed feedback about end of life care planning. Some relatives had been involved in care planning, but most relatives said they had not discussed future wishes or contributed to advanced care plans.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Overall relatives and people told us they felt listened to. We did receive consistent feedback people who said people cared for in their bedrooms had less access to activities. Some relatives cited issues with the menus not being appropriate for the people living at the service in terms of types of meals offered, the status of people’s current health needs and variety and number of alternatives to what was on the menu.

Staff described how they supported people with diverse needs. They said information was clearly recorded in people's care records about their personal needs and preferences, including people's faith and culture and how this impacted on their care and support needs. Staff described how they used different communication methods and aids to be able to support people's understanding and involvement.

The provider had adequate experienced and life fulfilment events to ensure that service users had support with accessing social stimulation which had a positive outcome on wellbeing. However, more work was needed to ensure all people's choices and preferences were being considered and all people had access to these activities, whether they stayed in their bedrooms or did not.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about end of life care planning. Some relatives had been involved in care planning, but most relatives said they had not discussed future wishes or contributed to advanced care plans.

Staff were able to provide examples of how they provided safe care and treatment to people in line with their end of life wishes and preferences. Staff demonstrated a caring nature and showed they knew people and their preferences well.

The provider had systems and processes in place to ensure person-centred high-quality end of life care was provided to service users. However, we did find the provider needs to ensure people and relatives were consistently supported to contribute to care plans and their reviews.