Archived: Sunnyside Rest Home

Updated 21 September 2018

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 unannounced inspection was carried out on the 25 and 26 July 2018. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector. Before the inspection we looked at the information we held about the service including notifications they had sent to us. A notification is information about important events that the service is required to send to us by law. We also received feedback from health care professionals that we used to help inform our inspection planning.

We spent time observing the care and support being provided, spoke with four people who used the service and six relatives. We also spoke with five members of staff, the provider’s representative, the manager and a health care professional visiting the home.

We looked at four people’s care records, staff recruitment and training files and records relating to the management of the service. These included audits, incident logs, feed-back questionnaires, staff rotas and minutes from meetings and other records related to the management of the service. In addition we looked at all areas of the building including bedrooms, communal areas, kitchen, office and the outside grounds.

Updated 21 September 2018

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 July 2018. The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector and the first day was unannounced. The staff at the service were aware that the inspector would be returning for a second day.

At our inspection of 7 and 8 August 2017, we found four breaches of the regulations - there were issues in relation to the assessments of risks to people that had not always been updated in line with their needs; care plans were not always accurate and up to date; assessments of people's capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment were not undertaken in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the provider had not operated an effective complaints procedure. In addition, there was no organised programme of activities and there was no registered manager in place. This was a requirement of the provider’s registration.

At this inspection we found that improvements in all these areas. People’s care plans and assessments reflected their up to date condition and support they required. People were assessed as to their mental capacity and these assessments dealt with people’s ability to make decisions about their care and support. A complaint’s system was in place and people were confident about the process and the ability to raise concerns.

Sunnyside Rest Home is a care home located in the county of Lancashire in the village of Whitworth. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The home is registered to provide accommodation and support for up to eight older people some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection seven people were using the service.

There was a manager in place who, at the time of the inspection, was going through registration process with the Care Quality Commission. They subsequently became registered with the CQC on 6 August 2018. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals, medicines were securely stored, and the administration of medicines was recorded appropriately.

People received care, food and fluids in line with their care plans and as advised by health care professionals. Action had been taken to support people where risks had been identified and there were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. Peoples care plans were up to date and included detail about their needs and preferences. People using the service said they felt safe and that staff and the manager treated them well. Staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported from abuse. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available for staff and they told us they would use it if they needed to.

Recruitment of employees was robust with good record keeping and checks including DBS and ID procedures. These checks ensure that staff are not barred from working with vulnerable people and have a right to work in the UK.

Staff had received training in order to meet the needs of people using the service. They had also received regular supervision and an appraisal of their work performance. The manager and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

There was enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs safely. We saw that staff respected people’s privacy, dignity and independence and engaged with them in a caring manner. They understood and responded to people’s individual needs and were familiar with people’s histories and preferences.

People and their relatives had been involved in planning for their care needs. Care plans and risk assessments provided clear information and guidance for staff on how to support people using the service. There was a range of appropriate activities available for people to enjoy. People and their relatives knew about the home’s complaint’s procedure and said they were confident their complaints would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary.

At the time of the inspection we noted that the home’s décor was tired in places but a new purpose built home was in the process of being completed at the time of the inspection. People and their relatives had been thoroughly consulted about a transfer to the new home that was a short distance away from the current home. It was hoped that the move would be finalised in the autumn/early winter of 2018. The provider’s representative said that people and their relatives had agreed that it would be pointless to spend monies on refurbishments at the current home. This was confirmed when we spoke with people and they said that they had had active involvement in the choices of décor and facilities at the new home.