Archived: Sunnyhill Residential Care Home

There was a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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 inspected Sunnyhill Residential Home on 8 November 2016. The inspection was unannounced. The service was last inspected in May 2014 when it was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations.

People told us they felt safe at the service and with the staff who supported them. People told us, “It is very good here. The staff are good,” and a relative told us, “It is ideal (for my relative) because it is small. The staff are lovely.”

People told us they received their medicines on time. Medicines were well organised, records kept to a good standard, and staff had received suitable training to administer medicines.

Staff told us they had confidence that management would take any allegations of abuse seriously, and subsequently take suitable action. Staff had been trained to recognise potential signs of abuse.

Staff had received training to provide care and support to people. Training included moving and handling, first aid and dementia. Most staff had obtained a National Vocational Qualification, or diploma in care, and new staff were supported to obtain this qualification. Staff said they felt supported by management to carry out their jobs, and felt they could raise any concerns or suggestions.

Personnel files contained information, such as written references and an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, to ensure staff were deemed as suitable people to work with older people. Suitable recruitment processes, such as the completion of an application form, and a formal interviewing process were in place.

The service had appropriate links with medical services such as general practitioners, dentists, chiropodists and opticians. The registered manager of the service said these services were supportive, and people said they received enough support from these professionals. However some people’s records outlining when they had seen a dentist and /or an optician could be improved.

People told us there were enough staff on duty, and people said they received timely support from staff when it was needed. Call bells were answered promptly and we observed staff being attentive to people’s needs.

There were activities available for people. Some external entertainers such as musicians and singers visited. An activities co-ordinator was employed to work three days a week.

Care records provided suitable information such as a care plan, daily records and risk assessments. Care plans were regularly reviewed. The service had appropriate systems in place to assess people’s capacity in line with legislation and guidance, for example using the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People told us they were very happy with their meals and always had enough to eat and drink. Comments received about the meals included “They are lovely,” and “Very good.” People said they had a choice and received enough support when they needed help with eating or drinking.

People remarked if they had any concerns or complaints they would feel confident discussing these with staff members or management, or they would ask their relative to resolve the problem. They were sure the correct action would be taken if they made a complaint.

People felt the service was well managed. There were suitable systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

To see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, and well maintained. Equipment and services at the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly.

Risk assessments were in place to provide information to staff to help minimise the risk of any harm to people.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Staff were able to describe when a DoLS had been put in place in the past and why this had been used. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and the senior staff member knew how to submit and review one.

Is the service effective?

People were involved in writing their individual plan of care. We saw that these were reviewed and updated to reflect any changing need.

People told us that they received the care they required and were well cared for. One person said, 'It's very nice here, everything is 100%.' Direct observation and discussion with staff indicated that staff were knowledgeable about people's care and social support needs.

Training records seen confirmed staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and caring staff. We saw that staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. They offered choices and listened to what people wanted.

Our observations confirmed that people were encouraged to be independent but were helped when they needed any support.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Individual care plans were developed for each person following admission. These recorded people's preferences, interests, and required care and support needs that met their wishes. People had access to activities and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that a number of quality assurance processes were in place. These included feedback from people who used the service and their representatives.

People and visitors told us if they had any concerns they spoke to the deputy manager or senior member of staff on duty. They said issues were dealt with effectively.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. There was no registered manager in post. The deputy manager managed the home on a daily basis and was supported by a registered manager from another home within the organisation and the provider. Staff said they were kept up to date with any changes as required. They told us that their views and concerns were listened to and taken into account.

In this report the name of Ms Karen Noyce appears as the registered manager. Ms Karen Noyce was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

We saw that staff asked people for their consent before they provided care and support and people decided how and where they spent their time. People told us they were very comfortable living in Sunnyhill. One person said, 'I am quite happy here and I like my room, it's very nice.'

We examined four care plans. We found they identified people's specific needs and that people and their relatives, if appropriate, were involved in making decisions about the care provided. Staff said they had read the care plans and were able to demonstrate a good understanding of people's needs and how these were met.

We looked at the staff rota and the training matrix. Staff told us that there were enough staff working in the home, which they said meant they were able to provide the support that people wanted. The training matrix showed the training staff had attended and further updates and training that had been arranged. Staff said they felt the training enabled them to offer appropriate support and care for people who lived in Sunnyhill.

We looked at the complaints procedures and found that it was accessible to people who lived in the home and visitors. People we spoke with said they did not have any complaints about the support and care people received.

We visited the home and spoke with ten people who used the service. People who spoke with us said they liked the staff and one person said, 'I am very comfortable here, I have everything I want.'

We spoke with two visitors and they told us the staff were very good. They said they were involved in decisions about the support provided, and they felt people who used the service were safe. One relative said, 'We have no concerns, from what we see, people are looked after very well.'

We looked at four care plans. We found that some of the records did not identify people's specific needs and some risk assessments had not been completed. However, the staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and felt they were able to provide the support that people who used the service wanted.

We looked at the staff rota and spoke with two care workers. They said that there were usually three care workers on each shift. They also said that if there were not enough staff the manager would take on the role of senior care worker, to ensure people were safe.