Archived: Sunbury Lodge

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. The staff that we spoke with understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safeguarded. They were able to describe the different ways that people might experience abuse and the correct steps to follow if they had any concerns that abuse had taken place.

Equipment was well maintained and regularly serviced and all health and safety records were up to date. These checks meant that people were not placed at unnecessary risk.

The staff rotas showed that there was sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs throughout the day. This ensured that people received appropriate support where required.

There were procedures for dealing with emergencies and we found that staff were aware of these procedures and contacted the emergency services when required.

Is the service effective?

All the people who used the service had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. People told us they had been involved in the assessment of their health and care needs and had contributed to developing their care plan.

People had access to a range of health care professionals some of which visited the home. This included diabetic nurses, general practitioners (GP), dentists, district nurses and mental health nurses to ensure people received care that was safe and met their needs.

People's end of life care wishes was included in their care plan. People who did not want to be resuscitated had a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNAR) in place. This had been signed by their GP to ensure that their end of life wishes were known and respected.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with nine people using the service. We asked them about their experience in the home. All the people we spoke with complimented the service they were receiving. People said they were happy at Sunbury Lodge, they liked the food and felt well looked after by staff.

Staff we spoke with were aware of individual care needs and the support they should provide to meet those needs.

People using the service and their relatives had been asked for their feedback about the service. Where shortfalls were identified, these were taken into consideration and dealt with.

People's likes and dislikes, life history and diverse needs were recorded in their care plan to ensure that staff had access to information to help them understand people's lifestyle choices and care for them appropriately.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. All the people we spoke with on the day of the inspection said they had nothing of great concern to complain about.

The provider's complaint log we looked at showed that where people had raised any issues of concerns, these we looked into and appropriate action taken as necessary.

The provider worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a coherent way.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified issues were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us that they felt supported in their role and were comfortable to raise any issues of concern with the home's management team.

We checked to see whether the provider had taken action following our inspection on 18 June 2013 and found that the provider had made the required improvements. Each person had a care plan in place with risk assessments relevant to people's care needs. We found that the provider had suitable arrangements in place for obtaining, storing, recording and administering people's medication. Staff records we looked at showed support was in place for staff through training, supervision and appraisals. However, most staff we spoke with did not feel adequately supported in their role. People's records, staff records and other records used for the management of the service were fit for purpose.

We found that each person who used the service had a care plan and risk assessment in place. Staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibility to protect vulnerable adults from abuse. However, we found that care had not always been carried out in the way that it had been planned. We also found that people were not protected from the risks associated with the management of medicines because the provider did not have arrangements in place for the safe administration of medicines. Support was in place for staff; however supervision and appraisal was not regularly updated in line with the provider's policy. We also found issues with the management of records including staff records not being updated in line with the provider's required time frame.