Sunridge Court

Sunridge Court is a residential care home which was providing personal care to 36 people at the time of our inspection. All people living at the service were older people, some of whom had dementia. The service can support up to 44 people in one adapted building over three floors.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Medicines were managed safely. However, we have made a recommendation about best practice with regards to recording loose medicines upon admission. There were systems in place to help protect people from abuse. Infection control practice sought to keep people safe from infection and visitors to the service were permitted. People’s risks were assessed and monitored. People told us there were enough staff working at the service. Recruitment processes were robust. Lessons were learned when things went wrong as incidents were recorded and actions completed to keep people safe.

People’s needs were assessed in line with the law, prior to their admission. Staff received induction and training, so they knew how to work effectively with people. Staff were supported in their role through supervision. People were supported to eat, drink and maintain healthy diets. Staff communicated effectively with other agencies, including health care services, to ensure people received good care. The provider had adapted the building to ensure it met people’s needs and people could decorate their rooms as they pleased. 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; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s choices were respected, and decisions made in their best interests.

The service was caring. People and relatives thought staff were caring. People were supported to express their views. People’s privacy and dignity were respected, and their independence promoted.

Care plans were person-centred, and staff knew what people liked. People’s communication needs were met. People were able to take part in activities they could enjoy. People and relatives could complain and when they did, complaints were responded to appropriately. The service recorded people’s end of life wishes and people and relatives were treated with respect and dignity when people approached the end of their lives.

A positive person-centred culture was promoted. People, relatives and staff thought highly of the service and the management team. The registered manager understood duty of candour and acted appropriately when it was felt the service could do better. Staff understood their roles and the registered manager fulfilled the service’s regulatory requirements. People, relatives and staff were able to be engaged and involved with the service through meetings. There were quality assurance systems so care could be monitored and improved. The service worked with other agencies to the benefit of people using the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for the service was good (published on 28 February 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.