Sunningdale House Care Home

Sunningdale House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. We regulate both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

This was a comprehensive inspection carried out on 8 and 10 October 2018. The inspection was unannounced on the first day and announced on the second.

At our last inspection in March 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good.

People remained safe at the service. During the inspection the provider took action to ensure hot water temperatures were safe to avoid the risk of scalds. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and said they would not hesitate to report any concerns. Risk’s to people safety and well-being were managed without imposing unnecessary restrictions on people. Medicines were managed safely ensuring people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff were safely recruited and employed in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs. The staff team were well trained and supported. Staff protected people’s rights by following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People enjoyed the food and were supported to maintain a healthy diet and fluid intake. People had access to health professionals to promote their health and well-being. Health professionals expressed their confidence in the staff team’s ability to recognise people’s changing health needs.

Improvements had been made to the environment to help people use it more easily and to help them orientate themselves.

People were treated in a kind and caring way by the staff team. Their privacy and dignity was respected. Staff interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner. Staff had developed good relationships with people and were attentive to their needs.

People’s care plans had been developed to identify what support they required and how they would like this to be provided. People had opportunities to take part in activities which they enjoyed and which met their abilities and interests. They were confident that any concerns raised would be dealt with.

The service was well managed. There were effective quality assurance arrangements in place to monitor care and plan ongoing improvements. People's views about the running of the service were sought regularly and changes and improvements took account of people’s suggestions.

This inspection took place on 2 and 3 March 2016 and was unannounced. There were 18 people living at the home at the time of the inspection.

We last inspected this service on the 30 September 2013 and found that the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. 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 who used the service, their relatives and professionals said they felt the service was safe. Staff knew how to protect people from avoidable harm and how to report concerns about possible abuse. Risk management plans were in place and they were reviewed to reflect any changes. Medicines were safely managed. People received their medicines as prescribed.

The consistently kind and friendly approach of staff ensured people's privacy and dignity were respected. Care was provided in a caring and attentive way and staff showed they understood people’s needs, preferences and characters. People's hobbies and interests had been identified and a range of activities were offered.

The service had sufficient experienced staff in place to meet the care and support needs of people using the service. Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured that staff were of suitable character to work with vulnerable adults. Staff were well trained and supported; morale within the team was described as “good”.

People were protected by the practice in relation to decision making. The registered manager and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS applications had been appropriately made when needed.

People had access to a range of health care professionals to ensure they were supported to maintain their health. Feedback from health professionals was positive and demonstrated that people’s health needs and risks were well monitored and managed. People were provided with adequate amounts of food and drink to meet their individual likes and nutritional and hydration needs. People said they enjoyed the food and there were different options available to them. Staff were alert to people’s needs at mealtimes providing support where needed.

People were aware of how to raise a complaint or concern; they said they would not hesitate to speak with staff if they had any concerns. People were confident any concerns would be addressed.

The service was well managed. There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and plan ongoing improvements. There were arrangements in place to seek people's views about the running of the home and share information with them about any changes or improvements.

We found that people were cared for and supported by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. People's comments about the staff included 'They are wonderful, the girls. I am looked after well', 'I can have a talk with them when I want', and 'I've got every confidence in them'.

Individuals' consent was sought before they received any care and their wishes were respected. Where people did not have the mental ability or capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements to promote their best interests. Care was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. They were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care because appropriate records were maintained.

People were cared for in a clean environment, protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance was followed.

We saw that care and support was delivered in a kind and respectful way. People told us that they were able to do what they wanted to do such as sit where they wanted to sit. We saw staff offer drinks to service users and relatives throughout the day and being attentive to people's needs. When care was being planned, we saw that people were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment as able as well as room d'cor and activities.

People we spoke with made positive comments about the running of the home and opportunities available to them. Records showed that the home regularly monitored the quality of the service including people's views, risks, care plans and audits. For example, the recent quality assurance survey included comments such as 'We are very impressed with the staff and management- a home that really feels like a home'.

We also received some information of concern relating to medication management and health and welfare decisions. This visit included inspection by our pharmacist inspector. These issues were discussed with the provider and safeguarding team. None of the issues relating to the concern were found to be substantiated and the safeguarding investigation was closed.