Archived: Sansigra Care Home

Sansigra Care Home provides care and accommodation for up to eight people who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. There were six people living at the service at the time of the inspection visit.

The service is situated in a rural setting on the outskirts of the city of Truro. It is a small holding with two horse’s, chickens and some cattle. There are transport vehicles to support people to use community facilities.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Some people were able to verbally communicate with us but others were not, therefore we observed how people interacted with each other and with staff. We observed that people were relaxed, engaged in their own choice of activities and appeared to be happy and well supported by the service.

People were supported to lead full and varied lives and staff supported them to engage in a wide variety of activities. People told us, “I like the horses and we go to the garden centre sometimes. We do a lot of things here” and “I go to (relative name) for holidays. I like football so I go and watch It with (staff name)”.

People told us they felt safe living at Sansigra. One person said, “Yes, I always feel safe here, they (staff) are kind”. Arrangements were in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks, which they told us they enjoyed. There was flexibility in what people might want to eat.

The environment was of a homely nature. Rooms were personalised where people had wanted to include their own items.

People had individual support plans, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. Professional we spoke with told us the staff team were responsive to people’s needs and made changes where necessary.

Care records were detailed and contained specific information to guide staff who were supporting people. Life history profiles about each person were developed in a format which was more meaningful for people. This included large print and pictorial information This meant staff were able to use them as communication tools.

Risk assessments were in place for day to day events and to support people’s life choices. For example going out into the community . This information was included in people’s care documentation.

Medicine procedures were safe. Medicines were administered as prescribed and at the times prescribed. Records were accurate and audited regularly.

There was a system of quality assurance checks in place. People and their relatives were regularly consulted about how the home was run. Relatives said, “I am confident (persons name) is very well cared for and happy living at Sansigra” and “I am always kept informed and updated about (persons name). I think they are good at keeping us up to date”.

The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with the proprietors, one of which was the registered manager, relatives of people who used the service, the staff supporting them and looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be safe.

Relatives of people who lived at Sansigra told us they believed the service was safe. They told us they had turned up at the home unannounced and had never seen anything of concern. We observed one resident who was at home on the day of the inspection and saw they were smiling and relaxed with staff.

The homes safeguarding and whistle blowing policies were comprehensive and up to date.

Staff had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Care files contained risk assessments which were regularly reviewed.

We looked at records regarding people's personal finances. We saw the amounts of monies being held for people tallied with that which was recorded. However, we found the system for recording people's expenditure was not robust.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. While no applications had been necessary, proper policies and procedures were in place. Management understood when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be effective.

People's needs and preferences regarding their care and support were met. We saw there were systems in place to ensure staff were aware of people's changing needs.

People's care records were well laid out and contained detailed information regarding many aspects of people's care. For example there were sections on mental health, physical health, communication and moving and handling. The care records helped ensure people's needs were clearly identified.

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and dehydration because there was regular monitoring and individual needs were assessed.

Is the service caring?

On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be caring.

Relatives we spoke with told us their family members were treated kindly. One commented; 'They are always happy to go back. If they weren't happy they would let us know.'

During the inspection visit we observed one person who was at home on the day interacting with staff. We saw staff were attentive to their needs and ensured they were comfortable and at ease.

Sansigra took people's individual communication skills abilities and preferences into account and had a range of ways to make sure people were able to say how they felt about the care they received.

Is the service responsive?

On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be responsive.

People took part in a varied range of activities which suited their individual needs. From the home's records we saw these activities sometimes took place in the local community. This meant people were protected from the risk of social isolation.

Relatives we spoke with told us they would feel comfortable making a complaint although no-one we spoke with had needed to do so.

Is the service well-led?

On the day of the inspection we judged the service to be well-led.

Staff we spoke with told us the proprietors were approachable and they could speak with them about any concerns they had.

The views of people living at Sansigra and those of their relatives and staff were actively sought out.

At the time of the inspection the registered manager told us there was sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Relatives we spoke with told us there were always enough staff to support people well.

Care plans and associated documentation were detailed, informative and directed and guided staff on the action they needed to take in order to meet peoples' assessed care needs. Peoples' records were personalised, detailed and provided clear information about the person's needs, wishes and abilities.

People were supported to understand options available to them when making decisions in order to give valid consent.

The registered providers operated a quality assurance system that ensured people received care of a good standard.

People said that they liked living at Sansigra and they 'all got on well together'. Positive comments were made about the activities that people took part in. Two people told us about their outing the evening before our inspection and how much they had enjoyed this. Another person was looking forward to going to watch the local football team on the day of our inspection.

Care plans and associated documentation were detailed, informative and directed and guided staff of the action they needed to take in order to meet people's assessed care needs. People's records were personalised, detailed and provided clear information about the person's needs, wishes and abilities.

A robust recruitment procedure was undertaken prior to appointing new staff, that ensured that people received their care from appropriate and competent care workers.

The registered providers operated a quality assurance system that ensured people received care of a good standard.