Archived: Sunnyside House

At the time of our inspection there were eight people living at Sunnyside House which is situated on the main road in the village of Birdwood. Sunnyside House provides accommodation in the main house, a bungalow and an annexe for one person. People in the main house had their own bedrooms, they shared bathrooms and shower rooms and shared a living room, dining room and kitchen. The house was detached and set in its own grounds.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People’s care was highly personalised reflecting their personal preferences, aspirations, likes and dislikes. They were involved in the planning of their care and support through meetings with staff and when planning reviews of their care. People had access to information in easy to read formats, produced using photographs, pictures and plain English to help them understand their care records as well as health guidance, safeguarding and complaints information. They also had access to digital versions of these guides and there were plans to produce audio formats. People were supported to make choices about their day to day lives. Any restrictions which were in place were done with their agreement or in their best interests. When needed deprivation of liberty authorisations had been granted. People were helped to manage their feelings and emotions by staff who really understood them and knew how to support them to regain a sense of calm. People led full and meaningful lifestyles accessing activities of their choice in the local community and their home. People were supported to try out voluntary work and paid employment opportunities at Sunnyside.

People were supported by staff who were recruited safely ensuring they had the right skills, knowledge and aptitude to work with them. Staff were encouraged to develop professionally and had access to a comprehensive training programme. They said they felt supported in their roles and had individual meetings to reflect on their performance and their training needs. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff worked flexibly to make sure people’s day to day commitments were met. Staff were confident about raising safeguarding concerns and how to manage these as well as using the provider’s whistle blowing procedure.

Sunnyside was well managed. The registered manager was supported by a management team who staff said were “cohesive and work well together”. They strove to make improvements to people’s experience of their care and support. This was done in response to feedback from people and staff as well as implementing actions in response to the quality assurance audits which were in place. People were confident expressing concerns to staff or the registered manager. The registered manager was according to staff, “very service user led” and “a very supportive and approachable manager”.

The registered manager was on holiday, and so we met with a senior person in charge. Later in the day we were joined by a representative of the provider.

We were given a tour of the home and the grounds. We spoke with five people who lived in the home. We spoke with the representative of the provider, a senior member of staff and four members of staff. We read the care records for five people who lived in the home. We inspected the policies and procedures, the complaints folder, the safeguarding folder and read reports from quality monitoring visits. We spent time observing staff interactions with people they were supporting.

A single inspector carried out the inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five questions: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

We found the service was safe.

Staff told us they had received training about safeguarding vulnerable people. They told us they would report concerns immediately to a senior staff member. They also told us they carried 'cards' which had been given to them when they started working in the care home, with contact numbers if they needed to 'whistleblow' or report issues they were worried or concerned about. Policies, procedures and local guidelines were available for staff to follow.

We saw that staff had a good rapport and interacted well with the people living in the home. We saw that people freely approached members of staff when they wanted a chat or a meeting with them in private, in the office.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS), which applies to care homes. The provider had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and some people had Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards authorised and in place. This was in line with the provider's policies and procedures, and the CQC had been notified as required by law. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

We found the service was effective.

We spoke with people who used the service and found that they had been supported to be involved with their health action plans and care plans. Information was provided in easy read format.

We spoke with staff who told us that the induction training to their role had been comprehensive. They also told us that they received regular supervisions and appraisals.

We saw involvement from external health professionals such as the community learning disability team (CLDT). We also saw that that people living in the home benefited from the support of the psychology team employed by the company who met with people on a one to one basis, and provided support, advice and guidance for staff.

We found the service was caring.

We spoke with staff, and observed the interactions they had with people. We found, without exception, that staff spoke kindly and demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs. One staff member told us, "We get to know each person well, what they like and don't like, so that helps us make sure we offer appropriate choices." Another staff member told us, "We learn how best to keep people calm, and then we can discuss their preferences and choices with them."

We saw people freely expressing what they wanted to do during the day, and they were supported by kind and reassuring staff.

We found the service was responsive.

People had their needs assessed on a regular basis. They met with their key workers on a monthly basis to review their plans and to discuss what was important to them. Records confirmed that feelings, likes and dislikes, preferred routines, what other people admired about them, what was really important to them, was all taken into account when care was planned and documented.

We found the service was well-led.

We saw that people were asked for their feedback. A representative from the home was invited to attend the quarterly 'Service User Committee Meetings' which included representatives from other care homes run by the provider. We also saw that people who used the service, their families and staff had been asked to complete quality assurance questionnaires. We saw the most recent summary of the responses and found that there were many positive responses, and some suggestions for improvements.

Action plans were developed by the manager in response to feedback, monitoring visits from the provider and external agencies.

This meant that people could be confident that the service they received was reviewed regularly with the aim of making improvements.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and told us that they were well supported by their manager.

Medicines were given appropriately by staff that had been trained. We saw that the provider had sent out satisfaction questionnaires to people who used the service and their relatives. The results of these were all very positive about the home and the care people received. The manager confirmed that the home had not received a complaint since October 2011. We looked at the provider's policies and audits. All were up to date and fit for purpose. New polices had been produced and were being distributed to the provider's homes.

The comments from the people we spoke to included 'the staff cared for me, and I have choice to do things that I want to do'. 'The staff supported me when I need it'.

No concerns had been raised with us before our inspection and we saw nothing that gave us cause for concern during our visit. We spoke to two people who used the service. One told us "I love the activities here, there is so much to do and the staff have to tell me to slow down". Another person told us "I like living here, I get on really well with the staff and I like doing activities with them".