Archived: Sunnyside

Updated 8 December 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection which took place on the 6 and 13 November 2018. The inspection was undertaken on the first day by two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The second day was undertaken by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and what improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and looked at information we held about the service and provider, including notifications the provider had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We used this information to help us plan the inspection. We also asked Tameside council, the local authority, and Healthwatch Tameside for their views on the service. They raised no concerns.

Some of the people living at Sunnyside were not able to clearly tell us about their experiences. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

During our inspection we spoke with seven people who used the service and nine visitors. We also spoke with the registered manager, the area quality manager, the cook, kitchen assistant, two housekeepers, laundry assistant, five support workers, the activity coordinator and a student on placement from a health and social care course.

We carried out observations in public areas of the service. We looked at four peoples care records, a range of records relating to how the service was managed including medication records, three staff personnel files, staff training records, duty rotas, policies and procedures and quality assurance audits.

Updated 8 December 2018

Sunnyside is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 43 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, 36 people were living at the home.

At our last inspection in July 2017 we rated the service good overall.

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. We found the service had improved in the responsive domain and we now found it outstanding in that area. We found the service remained good overall.

Why the service is rated good.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. We found them to be passionately committed to providing responsive, person-centred support to people. All the staff we spoke with shared this passion, commitment and enthusiasm. Everyone we spoke with said the registered manager led by example and the person-centred care and support came from their lead.

Staff were very enthusiastic and told us they really enjoyed working at Sunnyside. People who used the service were at the centre of their work. They knew about people’s needs, wishes and goals and were committed to making sure they were met. People told us managers and staff went the extra mile to provide a person centred and extremely responsive service. People who used the service were extremely positive about the staff and living at the home.

Systems in place ensured each individual was at the heart of the service they received. People were actively encouraged to be involved in developing their care records. The service had a holistic approach to planning and providing care and support. Visitors told us they felt their views and knowledge was valued.

An extremely wide range of activities were provided both in the home and in the wider community. They service placed a clear emphasis on the importance of social contact, friendships and people remaining part of the wider community. Staff at the home were passionately committed to developing intergenerational working. We found the service promoted well-being and protected people from the risks of social isolation and loneliness.

Staff were patient and very calm and extremely respectful. Staff treated people with dignity and we saw people were relaxed and comfortable in their surroundings. There was lots of chatting and appropriate humour and laughter. Throughout our inspection, we were consistently told us how homely Sunnyside was.

Peoples end of life wished were identified and respected. Staff showed genuine compassion and respect for people’s wishes.

Feedback was actively sought from people who used the service, their families and friends. There was a procedure to help people to complain if they wanted to. People told us they had no complaints. Technology and social media were used to share information and photographs.

Medicines were managed safely and people were supported to ensure their health needs were met.

People were safe because there were effective risk assessments in place. The service had a positive approach to risk taking. The registered manager was proactive in improving the response to the risk of falls. Systems were in place to keep people safe from abuse or avoidable harm.

Accidents and incidents were monitored. These records were analysed each month so that they could review the action taken and identify any patterns or lessons that could be learned to prevent future occurrences.

Health and safety checks had been carried out. Premises and equipment had been serviced and maintained appropriately. The home was clean, bright, nicely furnished and well decorated.

Staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. Staff members had been safely recruited and there were sufficient numbers of staff to provide people with the person-centred support they needed.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and continually improve the quality of the service provided. Policies and procedures were in place and were kept under review.

The provider had notified CQC of significant events and displayed the rating from the last report.