Sutton Court

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We assessed 7 quality statements within the well-led key question. Effective systems to assess, monitor and improve the service and maintain an accurate, complete record in respect of each person were in place. This meant leaders and the culture they created supported the delivery of good-quality care. Systems were in place to monitor quality, with learning and action taken to address any shortfalls. There was a capable and compassionate management team who, with staff, fostered a culture that delivered good quality care for people in partnership with external professionals. People, family members and external health and social care professionals told us they felt the service was well-led.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were supported by staff and leaders who had a shared values and promote transparency and learning. The progress the service had made over recent years was clear. People had more active and inclusive lives, in part because considerable emphasis had been put on communication development, for both staff and people. Systems and processes promoted a listening culture and equality, and diversity were recognised and supported.

People benefited from the support of leaders who were visible in the service and modelled inclusive behaviours. Staff told us they were able to talk with the provider and managers when they needed too. The registered manager told us they were frequently in the service and the home manager was there full time. We saw managers leading by example and saw friendly and familiar interactions between managers and staff. The provider had improved their guidance around transparency and the managers and staff were clear about their duty of candour. The registered manager and provider understood their responsibilities in relation to their registration with CQC. The provider had invested in learning opportunities for the managers, and this had a direct and positive effect on the service delivery.

Staff were proud of the service. All the staff spoken with said they would recommend the service as a place to work. Staff said they felt able to raise anything with the provider and felt they would be listened to. One staff member said, “I feel safe to speak up. If I needed, I would go higher.” The management team ensured everyone was treated fairly and were not discriminated against due to any protected characteristics. The registered manager told us, “At Sutton Court there is a wide range of different backgrounds and when I am in the home, I can see that everyone is treated fairly and able to talk when they need to.” There were processes in place to support staff to speak up, such as a whistle blowing policy and information containing contact details of the local authority and CQC. Staff confirmed they had access to the information.

Staff said they enjoyed working at Sutton Court. New staff said they had felt welcomed into the home and were given enough information and training to enable them to undertake their roles. One staff member told us, “I get so much help from the managers.” The service was fully staffed. The duty roster showed staff working various hours indicating flexible working, as far as is practical within a service needing to provide round the clock cover. The registered manager confirmed staff received regular face to face supervisions and provided evidence of these. Supervisions provided an opportunity for staff to discuss any concerns or thoughts related to career progression. Staff told us they valued the time they had to have staff meetings and one to one supervision. Staff came from diverse backgrounds, and they told us their different cultural needs were respected.

There was a positive culture where people understood their roles and responsibilities. There was a consistent staff team who people told us they liked and demonstrated genuine regard for the people they supported. Work had been done to develop the service into a person-centred service, offering people a wider range of opportunities. There were some historic issues of overly cautious practices, which could be seen as potentially restrictive, specifically, some locked food cupboards. This was a long-standing arrangement, and we saw people tell staff they wanted a snack or fruit, and they were supported to get it by staff unlocking the cupboard. This practice had not been reviewed and when discussed during the assessment visit, the home manager reflected they could do something to still protect one person from harm but make access to snacks and fruit better for others. Risk assessments were carried out by the end of the assessment and had been completed with people keeping snacks in their rooms or if they chose in personalised boxes in the kitchen. The Home manager and registered manager told us they would share with the other managers for the provider about asking the why question more when reviewing practices, particularly in services where people had lived for a very long time. Since the last inspection improvements have been made and new policies, procedures and quality assurance processes have been introduced. These have resulted in an improvement in the overall quality and safety of the service. Quality monitoring procedures were in place. These included a range of audits covering all aspects of the service such as support records, infection control, medicines, the environment and accidents and incidents. Policies and procedures were always available to staff.

The registered manager, home manager and staff were positive about their links with local health and social care teams. They expressed an open positive attitude to receiving support and understood how and where they could access support. External professionals confirmed this was the case and were positive about the staff and management team at Sutton Court. People benefited from the collaborative relationships staff at the home had developed with external professionals and services.

The service put emphasis on learning and improvement. The provider shared the improvements made to support planning, guidance, procedures and quality assurance processes since our last inspection. These have resulted in an improvement in the overall quality and culture of the service. The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. These were used to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care. A robust auditing system had been introduced following on from lessons they had learnt using a previous system. The registered manager told us, “This new system is better than the last audit tool we used. All managers now must evidence when completing audits and upload photos and if required complete Action Plans that I then must check and sign off.” They understood and acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes and shared this securely with others when appropriate. Safety events were investigated and reported appropriately. Where necessary lessons were learnt, and changes made to continually identify and embed good practices.