We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sudbury Care Homes Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Sudbury Care Homes Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People using the service and staff had detailed Covid-19 risk assessments, which identified those who were at a higher risk, and included measures to reduce the risk of infection.
All staff had received training about Covid-19 and infection control, including the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff changed their clothes when entering and leaving the home to help prevent spread of infection.
People and staff had access to regular testing for Covid19.
A washbasin had been installed outside the front door and guidance directed everyone, including staff, to wash their hands and use hand sanitiser before entering the home. All visitors to the home were screened and risk assessed to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. They received a temperature check and had to answer several questions, including whether they had any symptoms of Covid-19 or had been in contact with anyone who had the infection.
People had personalised visiting plans which were kept under review. Staff at the care home had supported people to keep in contact with family and friends. This included socially distanced visits in the garden and via phone and video calls.
Where people had not been able to take part in some activities, due to the risk of infection, staff had supported people to continue to take part in similar activities, by helping them to access and complete online courses and by arranging ‘movie nights’.
The provider had ensured staff had access to a adequate supplies of PPE. They also provided visitors with a ‘visitors’ pack’ which included disposable masks and gloves to use during their visit.
To reduce the risk of spread of infection, staff only worked in this care home and they no longer worked in any other homes and services run by the provider.
Enhanced cleaning schedules were in place. These included regular cleaning of frequent touch areas such as banisters, light switches, work surfaces and door handles.
The provider had created more space in the care home to support social distancing. A spare bedroom had been changed into a well-being room and a second communal lounge had been reorganised and improved for people's use.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Sudbury Care Homes Limited is a residential care home providing personal care for up to five people. It specialises in supporting people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection, there were five people living at the home.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People who lived in the home spoke positively about Sudbury Care Homes Limited. They were complimentary about the care they received and raised no concerns. They said they were safe in the home and treated with dignity and respect when being supported by care workers.
People were protected from abuse by staff who understood how to identify and report any abuse concerns. The risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had been assessed, recorded and plans put in place to reduce these. Staffing levels enabled people’s needs to be met safely and ensured people received a consistent and reliable level of care. Management sought to learn from any accidents or incidents involving people. Steps had been taken to protect people from the risk of infections.
We checked the arrangements in place in respect of medicines. Care workers had received medicines management training and policies and procedures were in place. Medicines Administration Records (MARs) were completed with no unexplained gaps.
Staff received an induction, followed by ongoing training and management support to enable them to work effectively. Staff spoke positively about their experiences working at the home and said that they received support from management. Teamwork was effective in the home and morale amongst staff was positive.
People were supported to follow healthy and nutritious diets. Any risks associated with their eating or drinking were assessed and managed. Staff and management worked effectively with community health and social care professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met and to achieve positive outcomes for them. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.
As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the deputy manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people. The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.
Staff adopted a friendly, caring and professional approach in their work. People were supported to express their views about the care provided, and these were listened to. People were treated with dignity and respect at all times and staff promoted their independence. Staff and management understood the need to promote equality and diversity and consider people’s protected characteristics.
People and their relatives’ involvement in decision-making about the care provided was encouraged by staff and management. People’s care plans supported a person-centred approach. People had support to lead lifestyles of their choosing, access the local community and participate in recreational activities. People and their relatives understood how to raise any concerns or complaints about the service. People’s wishes and choices about their end of life care were explored with them.
Management promoted a positive and inclusive culture within the home, based upon open communication with people, relatives, community professionals and staff. Staff told us that management were approachable and felt their own work was valued. Quality assurance systems and processes were in place to enable management to monitor and improve the quality of people’s care.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 10 March 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection on 16 and 10 October 2014 the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People who used the service told us they felt safe in the home and around staff. Care support staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of how to recognise and report allegations of abuse.
Medicines were managed safely and sufficient care support staff were deployed to ensure people’s needs were met.
We observed that the home was clean. Since the last inspection we noted that the service had paper towels available by hand wash basins to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
Care support staff were provided with a range of role specific training and management provided regular support through supervisions and appraisals. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care support staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were involved and encouraged to take part in the preparation of meals.
Staff demonstrated a caring attitude towards people who used the service and ensured their dignity and privacy were maintained.
Care records were person-centred, detailed and specific to each person and their needs. Care preferences were also noted. The home had a complaints policy in place and there were procedures for receiving, handling and responding to comments and complaints. A formal satisfaction survey had been carried out since the last inspection and feedback received was positive and no concerns were raised.
People who used the service and relatives told us that management were approachable and they were satisfied with the management of the home. The home had a clear management structure in place with a team of care support staff, deputy manager and the registered manager. Care support staff were supported by management and felt able to have open and transparent discussions with them. The quality of the service was monitored and we saw evidence that regular audits and checks had been carried out by management.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We inspected Sudbury Care Homes Limited on 16 and 20 October 2014. This was an unannounced inspection. Sudbury Care Homes Limited is a care home and provides care and support to five people with learning disabilities. The home is a converted house in a residential street, similar to the family houses in the neighbourhood. There were five people living at the home when we visited.
At our last inspection in August 2013 the service was meeting the regulations we inspected.
There was a registered manager at the time of our 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.
We observed that the home was clean and that an appropriate standard of hygiene was maintained in the kitchen and bathrooms. However there were no single use paper towels available at the hand wash basins to reduce the risk and spread of infection in line with guidance from the Department of Health. We have made a recommendation on the procedures for hand washing.
There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. People told us that they felt happy and secure, and that, “I have enough staff to help me.” Staff had access to the information, support and training they needed to do their jobs well. Medicines were administered safely.
People were involved in writing and reviewing their support plans. Each person had an allocated member of staff as a key worker, and they had monthly one to one meetings to set and review goals and plans.
Each person who used the service had their own bedroom and shared two bathrooms. There was a communal kitchen, lounge and dining room. We observed that the communal rooms were small and the kitchen had space for only one person to prepare drinks or food with staff support. One person said, “There are too many people here.” However another person showed us their bedroom and told us that they enjoyed the hobbies and activities they could practice there. They said that they could watch TV and meet visitors in private in the lounge.
People told us that staff supported them to do “lots of things.” Each person had a daily timetable for their choice of activities, using pictures so that they could make their choices and understand what they were doing and when. People told us that staff understood how they communicated and always asked them what they wanted to do, and how staff could support them. We saw that staff understood and communicated with people well, and supported them to make decisions and to be independent.
People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs.
The staff we spoke with were aware of the nutritional needs of the people they supported, and of the signs of possible malnutrition. People with specific dietary needs such as diabetes and high cholesterol were supported to understand their condition and to plan their meals.
Information on making complaints was provided with pictures to enable people to understand. The complaints record showed that people had raised concerns about a light not working and the need for a new freezer. These were addressed, and people’s views on the outcome were recorded.
Staff told us that the registered manager provided good leadership and support. They said the manager kept them informed of any changes to the service provided or the needs of people using the service. There were regular staff meetings where they were able to express their views. One staff member said, “We can say anything to the manager and it is genuinely listened to.”
Arrangements were in place to monitor the quality of the service. People gave their views on the service at residents meetings, monthly one to one meetings with their key workers, and at reviews of their care. We saw that their views were listened to and acted on. For example people were involved in choosing colours and furnishings for redecoration of their bedrooms. We saw the annual development plan for 2014, with dates for actions to be completed for redecoration, polishing the flooring, replacing net curtains with shutters to the bedroom windows. All these were recorded as completed.
People who used the service received appropriate care and support that met their individual needs and were treated with dignity and respect. One relative told us' they are very good people and look after my son very well. I am very pleased with them'.
There were processes in place to protect people who used the service from harm. The staff were trained to recognise the signs of abuse and to report concerns in accordance with the home's procedures.
The service had arrangements in place to manage medicines safely and appropriately.
There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.
Records kept were fit for purpose and held securely.
People told us that they engaged in various activities and had also been on holidays supported by staff. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and assisted in household chores. Their care records contained details of appointments with healthcare professionals and their care plans had been regularly reviewed.
Relatives who spoke with us stated that the personal, social and healthcare needs of people had been attended to. They had been consulted and kept informed regarding the welfare and progress of their relatives. Their views can be summarised by the following comment, 'I am satisfied with the care provided to my relative. The staff are good. My relative is happy in the home.'