Archived: Sudbury House

Updated 28 June 2023

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of this inspection, we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of 1 inspector.

Service and service type

Sudbury house is a care home without nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since it was registered with the CQC. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The PIR also provides data about the organisation and service. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We met 3 people who lived in the home. They were unable to speak with us due to their communication needs. We therefore spent time observing interactions between them and staff and spoke with 4 relatives. We also spoke with 3 care workers and the registered manager. We looked at a range of management records including medicines, quality audits and health and safety checks. We reviewed 2 people’s care record including risk assessments and staff recruitment records. After the site visit, we continued to liaise with the service. The registered manager and HR department sent us documentation we asked for and clarified any queries we had.

Updated 28 June 2023

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance the Care Quality Commission (CQC) follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

About the service

Sudbury House is a care home providing residential care to 4 people with learning disabilities. The service can support up to 5 people.

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

The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of 'Right support, right care, right culture.'

Right Support:

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 were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection. Medicines were managed in a person centred and safe way and staff ensured that people received medicines reviews.

People received personalised care which was built around their needs and wishes. Care planning involved the person and their relatives as appropriate. People’s risks were assessed in a person-centred way. People who may become anxious or distressed had positive behaviour support plans in place to reduce the need for restrictive practices.

Right Care:

People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity. They understood and responded to their individual needs. Where appropriate, staff encouraged and enabled people to take positive risks.

Care was person-centred and promoted human rights. We spent time observing interactions between people and staff and these were caring and supportive.

People were protected from abuse and poor care. Relatives had no concerns about the safety of people. There were policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of adults and staff knew what action to take if they thought anyone was at risk of potential harm.

People were supported to achieve their goals and aspirations by a staff team who knew them well. People had their communication needs met. Staff knew the best way to communicate with people. Communication was either verbal or through observing people's reactions to suggestions or actions.

Staff engaged with people in culturally appropriate activities in accordance with their individual care plan. People were supported to maintain links with their family.

Systems were in place to ensure people and relatives could provide feedback on the care they received.

Right Culture:

People were supported by staff who worked for a provider that promoted a culture where people were valued and respected as individuals. Staff and relatives spoke positively about the management of the service.

Staff completed training in learning disability and autism so that they could support people in a person-centred way. Staff received training in other core care subjects.

The staff turnover at the service was low, which helped ensure people received consistent care from staff who knew them well.

Governance systems ensured people were kept safe and received care in line with their personal needs and preferences. The service carried out a range of audits to monitor the quality of care they provided.

The service worked jointly with other professionals to improve outcomes for people.

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 this service was good (published 9 February 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

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