You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 March 2017

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Sutton Beeches on the 1st and 10th of February 2016.

Sutton Beeches community support centre is a two storey building set in its own grounds in a residential area. It is owned and managed by Cheshire West and Chester Council and provides respite care and rehabilitation for up to 30 people.

A registered manager had been in post since 2014. 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.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 22 December 2015 and 5 January 2016. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to Regulations 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

We found that the registered person failed to ensure that proper and safe management of medicines. This was a breach of regulation 12 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This visit found that systems had been put into place to reduce the risks associated with unsafe management of medication. This included appropriate storage of controlled medication. In addition to this, the temperatures of medication refrigerators were better monitored to enable the safe and effective storage of medication. Systems had been put into place to ensure that people did not run out of prescribed creams or other medications.

At our last visit, we found that the registered person failed to ensure that systems were in place to regularly assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. This was a breach of regulation 17 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This visit also found that audits in relation to care plans and medication administration had enabled any deficiencies to be quickly identified and addressed so that people were not put at risk. Monthly audits were conducted by the registered manager enabling an ongoing commentary of the quality of the service to be gained.

Our last visit had found that care plans were not person centred and had not been reviewed regularly. This visit found that care plans outlined the specific needs unique to individuals. The contents of care plans had been agreed by individuals and where changes were considered, these were agreed with individuals before they were implemented. Care plans showed evidence that as goals were achieved, new goals to meet the changing needs of people were set with their agreement.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the types of abuse that could affect people who used the service. Staff had received training in this and were knowledgeable about where poor practice could be reported.

Staffing levels were maintained in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of people who used the service. These levels were confirmed by staff rotas.

Recruitment of staff was robust. Checks were in place to ensure that people were protected by the recruitment process. Risk assessments relating to the environment and risks associated with the support provided were in place and reviewed.

The premises were clean and hygienic. All areas were well maintained.

Staff received the training and supervision they needed to perform their role. A structured induction was in place to prepare new members of staff to perform their role.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were able to outline its principles and how it affected the people who were supported.

People were provided with a choice of meals and offered regular drinks. Nutrition provided met the dietary requirements and preferences of people.

People felt cared about and observations noted that staff provided support in a caring and dignified manner. Staff were able to outline how they would support people with their privacy and dignity taken into account.

People had all their health and social needs assessed by the registered provider. This was translated into a plan of care which was personalised and reviewed regularly.

People knew how to make a complaint if needed. Complaints records were maintained and where complaints were made, the registered provider sought to respond to the complainant and investigate these appropriately.

The registered manager had responded to shortcomings during our last inspection by submitting an action plan. This visit found that action had been taken to address these so that people were not put at risk. The registered manager had gained the views of people who used the service and had introduced audits to measure the quality of the support provided.

Staff told us that the manager was open to ideas and felt that they were approachable and supportive. The registered manager had been transparent in providing information about the performance of the service following our last visit by providing details of its rating and the inspection report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 March 2017

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe staying at Sutton Beeches.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding and whistleblowing.

The registered provider had taken steps to ensure that medication management was robust.

The recruitment of new staff was robust and protected people from harm.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 March 2017

The service was effective.

People considered staff to be knowledgeable about their needs.

Staff received training and supervision their required to perform their role.

The registered provider took the principles of the mental capacity into account.

The nutritional needs of people were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 March 2017

The service was caring

People told us that staff were kind and promoted their privacy.

People were supported in a respectful manner.

People were supported in a way which promoted their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 March 2017

The service was responsive.

People had had the opportunity to agree with the content of their care plans.

Care plans were now more person centred and more regularly reviewed.

People knew how to raise a complaint if needed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 March 2017

The service was well run.

The registered provider had sought to address concerns raised at our last visit.

The registered provider enabled people who used the service to comment on their care.

Audits had been introduced to enable any risks faced by people who used the service to be identified and addressed.