Archived: Sutton House

Updated 22 December 2017

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 inspection took place on 20 November 2017 and was unannounced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure that the registered manager was available.

The inspection team comprised 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 expert-by-experience used on this occasion had experience of older people and people with learning disabilities.

Prior to the inspection we gathered and reviewed information about the service from a number of sources. This included notifications received from the provider and contacting the local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams. As part of 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 improvements they plan to make. This had been returned in a timely manner and we took the information within the PIR into account when making our judgements.

During our inspection we used a number of different methods to understand the experiences of people who used the service. We spoke with 16 people who used the service, two relatives, five care staff, the registered manager, the deputy manager and the area manager. We looked at elements of three people’s care records, some in detail and others to check for specific information, medication records and other records which related to the management of the service such as training records and policies and procedures.

Updated 22 December 2017

Our inspection of Sutton House took place on 20 November 2017. We gave the service short notice since the service operates a domiciliary care agency.

At the last inspection in June 2016 we found breaches of legal requirements relating to medicines management and good governance. At this inspection we found improvements had been made to meet the relevant requirements and the service was no longer in breach of regulations.

This service provides care and support to 19 people living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

There was a registered manager in position. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

People told us they felt safe living at Sutton House. Staff were trained to recognise and report signs of abuse and understood their role in keeping people safe. Accidents and incidents were documented with actions and analysis to mitigate the risk of recurrence. Risks to people were assessed and associated plans of care put in place.

Sufficient staff were deployed to keep people safe and people told us care and support visits were made in line with their care needs. They said staff generally arrived on time and stayed for the correct amount of time. Staff gave examples of where they visited people on top of regular calls to offer extra care and support if people were upset or to remind them of cultural fasting times. A robust recruitment process was in place and staff received regular training, supervision and appraisal.

Staff used gloves and aprons when carrying out personal care tasks to help reduce the spread of infection.

People were supported with their health care needs. We saw a range of health care professionals visited the service when required and people were supported to attend health care appointments in the community. This was reflected in people's care plans.

People were supported with shopping, preparing and cooking meals and cultural needs were respected. An emphasis was placed on retaining as much independence as possible and people were supported to maintain links with the outside community.

People's needs were assessed prior to commencement of the service and people were involved in the planning and review of their care. Personalised care plans were in place and these were regularly updated or when care and support needs changed. The service had accessible information in place and had plans in place to increase this with new care plan structures.

The service was compliant with the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and the registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Act. This helped to ensure people’s rights were protected.

People told us staff were caring and supportive. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity, knocking on people's apartment doors prior to entering and asking consent before care and support tasks. We saw the service respected the diverse interests and cultures of the people living at the service and saw no evidence of discrimination during the inspection. We saw good relationships had developed between people and staff and staff knew people and their care and support needs.

An easy read complaints procedure was in place and people told us they knew what to do if they had any concerns. However, people told us they had not needed to complain about any aspect of the service. We saw the registered manager and deputy manager had a good relationship with people and had an 'open door' policy to discuss any day to day worries.

There was an open and transparent culture at Sutton House. People respected the management team and found them approachable. Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and their views were listened to through surveys and team meetings.

People were involved with the service through questionnaires and regular meetings. We saw they had been involved in discussions about the future direction of the service and improvements to be made.