Archived: Sunrise Operations Guildford Limited

The ground and first floor provides accommodation for people described as requiring assisted living, this part of the home is called the Assisted Living Neighbourhood. The care provided includes a range of care and nursing needs that include minimal support for people up to full nursing care. Some people lead a mainly independent life and used the home’s facilities to support their lifestyle. Other people had various health care needs that included physical and medical conditions that included diabetes, strokes and end of life care. Some people had limited mobility and needed to be supported with equipment to help them move around. Some people lived with mild dementia that required regular prompting and supervision to lead a fulfilling life.

The second floor provided accommodation for people who were living with a dementia as their primary care need. This unit is called the Reminiscence Neighbourhood.

On the day of our inspection there were 96 people living in the home

This inspection took place on 26 April 2016 and was unannounced.

The home had a registered manager who was present during the inspection. 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 said that they felt safe and they appeared happy and at ease in the presence of staff. Staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these in order to keep people safe. Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and their responsibilities for reporting accidents, incidents or concerns.

People felt safe and staff knew what actions to take to protect people from abuse. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and were able to tell us the procedures to follow should they have any concerns

Care was provided to people by a sufficient number of staff who were appropriately trained. People did not have to wait to be assisted.

The service followed safe recruitment practices. Staff were skilled and experienced to care and support people to have a good quality of life. Staff received support to understand their roles and responsibilities through supervision and an annual appraisal. They received training during their induction and then on an on-going basis.

People received their medicines in a safe way and when they needed them. Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and recorded safely.

People told us care staff treated them with dignity and respect. Care staff respected people's

individuality and encouraged them to live the lives they wanted.

People said that they consented to the care they received. The home was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People said that they were involved in making decisions about their care as much as they wanted to be. Relatives told us that the home was proactive in letting them know of changes to their loved ones care or medical conditions

People said that the food at the home was good and that their dietary needs were met. Facilities were available for staff to make or offer people snacks at any time during the day or night.

People had care plans in place for staff to follow in order to meet their individual needs. Monitoring systems were in place to ensure people’s needs were being met in line with their care plans.

People said that they were happy with the medical care and attention they received and that staff were knowledgeable about their needs. People had access to a range of external health and social care professionals.

People said that staff treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff were seen to discreetly advise people when they required attention to their personal care and this was always provided in private. Staff were aware of people’s individual needs and able to explain their likes, dislikes, background history, and specific care needs.

People said that they enjoyed taking part in the activities provided at the home and that they felt that there was enough to do. We saw that the activities that took place were inclusive, and well matched to peoples’ interests and capabilities.

People said that they felt confident to rise concerns and complaints and that these would be responded to. Monthly residents meeting took place where people were able to raise issues and concerns if they wished to.

People were at the heart of the service. The provider's philosophy, vision and values were understood and shared across the staff team. People's right to lead a fulfilling life was enshrined in a charter of rights, which was displayed in the entrance to the home.

The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place, including regular audits on health and safety, infection control, dignity, care plans and medicines. Meetings took place with the registered manager and members of staff and representatives of the provider to ensure information was shared to drive improvements.

The registered manager met CQC registration requirements by sending in notifications when appropriate. We found both care and staff records were stored securely and confidentially.

We found that people who used the service were always being asked by staff if they consented to their care, and their right to refuse care was being respected. One person said: 'We get to choose what we do. If we don't want to do it we don't have to'. We also found the provider had a process in place to deal with situations where decisions had to be taken in a person's best interest.

We found that people were happy with their care and that staff engaged with people in an appropriate and sensitive manner. People said things like: 'They do everything they can to help us enjoy life.' We also found that people's needs were being properly assessed, managed and reviewed.

We found that people were being properly protected against abuse and staff were able to identify, respond to, and report abuse. All the people we spoke with said they felt safe from harm in the home.

We found that staff were being properly inducted, trained and appraised. However, we found that staff supervisions were being carried out very inconsistently.

We found there was an effective method of managing complaints and that people who use the service and relatives were aware of how to make complaints.

People told us that they felt well cared for and that there were always plenty of staff around to help if they needed it. They told us staff spent time with them and listened to what they had to say and actioned any requests or concerns in a timely and appropriate manner.

People we spoke to were aware that they had individual care plans and that they had signed in agreement to the plan.

People told us they enjoyed the food at the home. They said it was varied, in adequate quantity and of good quality. We saw staff assisting people to eat in a respectful and dignified manner. Menus were on display in the dining room and there was a comments book where people could write about their dining experiences or make requests. For example, we saw that a person had commented on how much they had enjoyed the soup at supper time.

People were happy with their accommodation and told us they felt safe at the home. We saw that rooms were of a generous size and had been personalised to reflect people's individuality. We saw that communal areas were being used as a social meeting place where people enjoyed each others company and listened to music.