Archived: Sunnyside Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

Risks of infection to people were minimised because staff had received appropriate training and were following good infection prevention and control practices.

People were being cared for by staff who had access to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Staff knew what PPE to wear for different tasks and people said they always followed these rules. One person told us, “I feel safe because staff always wear their masks.”

People lived in a home which was clean and fresh. In addition to general cleaning, staff carried out regular cleaning of touch points to minimise risks of infection. One person said, “Cleanliness is good. It is done thoroughly.” Another person commented, “Very clean here.”

Throughout the pandemic the registered manager had ensured that extra inhouse activities were made available. This had included exercise classes and virtual bike rides. One person said, “I’ve enjoyed the cycling with the TV.” Another person told us, “We’ve had plenty to do during the pandemic.”

The home had been following government guidelines to ensure people could stay in touch with friends and family. Before visitors were able to go inside the home, they had enabled window and garden visits and used video calls to help people stay connected. At the time of the inspection the home were welcoming visitors into the building. One person said they had had a visitor earlier in the day. They told us, “[Person’s name] had to be tested before he came in.”

People praised the staff and management of the home who had helped to keep them safe. One person told us, “They [staff] have kept us safe. We all do the testing, and everyone has had the vaccine.” Another person said, “They have followed all the rules to keep everyone safe."

At the last inspection in August 2015, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to keep them safe and meet their needs. There were policies and procedures in place which minimised the risks of abuse to people. Where concerns had been raised the registered manager had worked in partnership with relevant organisations to make sure people were safe. One person told us, “I feel safe. I have that feeling that whatever happens they will take care of me.”

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to effectively meet their needs. When required, staff assisted people to access health and social care professionals to ensure they received the care and treatment they needed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff at the home were kind and caring. People’s privacy was respected and people were able to socialise or spend time in the privacy of their rooms. One person told us, “I like it here. I can have privacy when I want it. You can please yourself.” People were involved in decisions about their care and were able to make choices on a day to day basis.

People received care and support in accordance with their individual wishes and needs. People were able to follow their own routines and make decisions about how they spent their time. There were organised activities arranged each day which people could take part in if they wished to. One person told us, “There’s always plenty to do here.”

There was a registered manager in post who was well supported by the registered provider. 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. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and to seek people’s views. The registered manager was very visible in the home and people felt able to raise concerns. One person said, “I would complain if there was anything to complain about but I always feel very well looked after.”

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Below is a summary of what we found. It is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people living at the home, and with the staff supporting them, and on looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Staff treated people with respect. Safeguarding procedures were in place, and staff knew how to recognise abuse. Arrangements were in place to make sure that the registered manager and staff learnt from incidents and investigations. People's care records, valuables and money were stored securely.

Is the service effective?

The service provided care in line with their wishes and individual needs. This was recorded in care plans. People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and where possible they signed to show that they were involved in deciding the best care to meet their needs.

Staff were trained in appropriate areas of care.

People who needed extra support to make decisions were able to use an independent advocate.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and caring staff. All of the people we spoke with told us that they were happy at the home. They said it was friendly and had an inviting atmosphere. One person said, 'I love it here.' Another described it as 'excellent.' They said they could not fault the care provided. A visitor told us that their friend was 'so well looked after. It's really, really nice ' they couldn't do anything more'.

The provider conducted annual satisfaction surveys. The most recent survey showed high levels of satisfaction with the quality of care.

Is the service responsive?

The service responded to people's changing needs. When people were unwell or they needed specialist assessment, the provider sought advice from community health and social care professionals.

There were residents' meetings where people could suggest changes to the provider. We saw notes of these meetings that showed that the provider listened and made changes where they could.

No-one that we spoke with had needed to make a complaint since the last inspection.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a system of regular quality assurance that monitored care and showed where it could be improved. The provider had appointed a staff member to be responsible for monitoring compliance with essential standards. When the need for improvement was identified, changes were made.

Staff understood their responsibilities. They felt well supported by the provider and the registered manager. A visitor told us they were 'impressed' with how the home was run.

People living in the home told us they enjoyed living at Sunnyside Residential Home. Some people commented 'I cannot think that any other homes could beat it' and 'you can be rest assured I think they do a very good job, it's more than just caring for you here'.

This was a planned inspection which included looking at areas of concern that were raised at our last inspection on 17 January 2013. At our last inspection we found people were not always given the opportunity to make their own choices about aspects of their care. We also found that some staff did not understand how the mental capacity act which protects people's rights when making decisions on their behalf. We also found people's care was not always assessed, managed or delivered to ensure risks to their health, welfare and safety were reduced. Finally we found he provider did not have an effective system in place to monitor and assess the quality of its service.

At this inspection we found significant improvements had been made. People spoken with felt their dignity was respected and the service provided a good level of care. People's care records were person centred with appropriate information of how they wanted to be supported. Staff had a better understanding of the mental capacity act which meant decisions were made on people's behalf appropriately. The provider recruited staff safely, ensuring checks were carried out to show employees were of good character and had the skills and experience necessary to carry out the role.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living in the home. One person said 'I would tell my relative if I was worried about anything and they would speak to staff on my behalf'. Another person said 'I can express any concerns if necessary'. We asked people what it was like to live in the home. They told us 'its alright here, we air our complaints and improvements are made, they do their best'. Another person said 'I have always been happy here'.

The provider was currently trying to recruit a new home manager. The deputy manager was currently managing the home with assistance from the provider.

We found that staff sometimes made decisions on people's behalf assuming that they knew what the person wanted. If a person required assistance to move staff were unaware of the right equipment to use so the person was moved safely. Staff were unclear what their role was and the role of other members of staff. The provider had assessed risks of people's health, welfare and safety but had not provided information for staff on how to prevent or manage the risk.