Archived: Sunshine Solutions

Updated 30 September 2016

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.

We undertook this inspection of Sunshine Solutions on 31 August 2016. We gave short notice of the inspection visit, so that we could be sure that the people we needed to speak with would be available. Two adult social care inspectors carried out the site visit.

Before we visited the service we reviewed the information we held about this location and the service provider. For example, the inspection history and registered provider’s action plan, any complaints and notifications received. Notifications are events that the registered provider has a legal duty to inform us about.

During our inspection we looked at the care records of five people who used the service. We also looked at other records related to the management of the service, such as staff training and support records, management audits and surveys. We spoke with the registered provider, the office manager, two care supervisors and two support workers.

After our visit an expert by experience carried out telephone interviews with nine people who used the service, with support from their relatives where this was needed. An expert by experience is someone with personal experience of using, or having a relative who used, social care services. We also contacted five health and social care professionals to ask for feedback about the service. The registered provider sent us additional information we had requested as part of the inspection process.

Updated 30 September 2016

We undertook this inspection of Sunshine Solutions on 31 August 2016.

Our previous inspection of Sunshine Solutions took place in July 2015, when the service was given an overall rating of requires improvement. Improvements were required to ensure staff received appropriate training and supervision and that there were effective systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service.

Sunshine Solutions is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care to people living in their own homes. The registered provider is an individual called Mrs Carol Anne Mitchie, who is involved directly in the running of the business and the provision of care. The service is provided from an office based on the Gallowfields Trading Estate in Richmond, and provides services to people living in Richmond and the surrounding rural areas. At the time of this inspection the service provided personal care to 52 people and employed 16 staff. The service provided a mixture of local authority contracted and privately funded care.

Because the registered provider is an individual they are not required to have a registered manager. In this case the registered provider is a ‘registered person’. 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 protected by the service’s approach to safeguarding and whistle blowing. People who used the service told us that they were safe, would be able to raise concerns if they needed to and were listened to by staff. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and could describe what they would do if they thought somebody was at risk of harm.

Safe arrangements were in place for staff recruitment and enough staff were available to provide people’s care. However, some improvements to staff recruitment records would be beneficial to better evidence where the registered provider had followed up outstanding references or concerns during the recruitment process.

People who used the service and their relatives told us that they had a small team of staff, who were reliable and arrived when expected. Staff confirmed that they usually had time to provide the care people needed without rushing.

The service had health and safety related procedures, including systems for reporting and recording accidents and incidents. The care records we looked at included up to date risk assessments, which had been completed to identify any risks associated with delivering the person’s care.

Safe systems were in place for assisting people with medicines, where this was part of their agreed care plan.

The registered provider had made improvements to staff training and supervision following our last inspection. Training was now provided face-to-face by a qualified trainer, with a training plan in place. Staff supervision sessions had been implemented.

People who used the service told us their regular staff were competent and knew them well. Staff told us they were well supported by their management and could get support when they needed it.

This service supported people in their own homes and provided help with meal preparation and eating and drinking where this has been agreed as part of the person’s care plan.

Staff told us they were trained in first aid and could describe what they would do if someone was unwell or needed medical support during a care visit.

The registered provider was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act, although care plans could be developed to include more personalised information about decision making.

People who used the service told us that staff were very caring and treated them well. People also said staff respected their privacy and dignity. Staff were able to describe how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity when providing care.

People’s care records showed that their needs had been assessed, planned and reviewed. Care plans provided information about the care and support people needed, although some more detail and personalisation would be beneficial in some of the records we viewed.

People who used the service and their relatives told us that they were listened to and that any changes or requests were responded to well. People also told us that they could contact the registered provider easily and felt that they listened and acted on concerns.

People who used the service knew who the registered provider was and told us that they were approachable and involved in the ‘hands on’ delivery of the service.

Since our last visit the registered provider had taken action to improve the systems that were in place for monitoring and improving the safety and quality of the service. This included a programme of audits, reviews and surveys.

The registered provider had notified us of relevant events that had occurred at the service and was displaying their rating, both in the office and on their website. This is a legal requirement.

Some areas of the service's records would benefit from further development as part of the registered provider's on going quality review processes, but overall the registered provider was now meeting the requirements of the regulations.