Archived: Sutton Lodge

On the day of our inspection there was a registered manager in place, but they were not 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 were protected from the risk of harm because staff could identify the potential signs of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to. Risks to people’s safety were continually assessed and reviewed, although personal emergency evacuation plans required more detail. People’s freedom was not unnecessarily restricted. There were enough staff to keep people safe and people’s medicines were managed safely. However the temperature of the room the medicines were stored in did, on occasions, exceed the recommend safe limit.

Staff completed an induction prior to commencing their role. The majority of staff training was up to date. Staff had the skills needed and their performance was regularly reviewed to enable them to support people effectively. However, members of the management team required refresher training in some areas.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, had been followed when decisions were made about people’s care. People spoke highly of the food provided, although some wished for more choice. Some people were left waiting too long for their meal to be served to them and others who needed assistance did not always receive it in a timely manner. People’s day to day health needs were met by staff. A visiting healthcare professional spoke highly of the way staff supported people. Referrals to relevant health services were made where needed.

Staff understood people’s needs; they showed a genuine interest in what they had to say and were kind, caring and compassionate. People’s privacy and dignity were maintained and staff spoke with them in a respectful way. People were involved with decisions made about their care and were encouraged to lead as independent a life as possible. People were provided with information about how they could access independent advocates. People’s friends and relatives were able to visit whenever they wanted to.

People spoke positively about the activities provided at the home. People’s care records were person centred and focused on providing them with care and support in the way in which they wanted. People were provided with the information they needed if they wished to make a complaint.

People were encouraged to provide feedback about the quality of the service and this information was used to make improvements where needed. Robust quality assurance processes were in place, including audits carried out by registered managers from within the provider’s group of services, to ensure people and others were safe in the home. Staff enjoyed their job and spoke highly of the management team. Staff understood and could explain how they would use the whistleblowing process.

We observed staff following procedures so that all medicines were safely administered and we found appropriate action was taken to protect people against the risks associated with medicines.

The manager and senior staff were responsive to people's needs in the way they allocated staff and we found there were enough staff provided to meet people's needs. A visitor told us, "There are always staff around and they are quick to help people when they need it."

We saw evidence of an effective system for the manager and provider to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There was a comments and suggestions box in the entrance area of the home for any visitors to leave their views at any time.

We looked at various records and found them appropriately maintained to ensure people's safety.