Sunnyside

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led-this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation regarding governance at the service.

There were systems and processes in place regarding good governance. However, these systems had not always identified issues we found during the assessment for example regarding identified risks in people’s environment, lack of personalised care plans and a lack appropriate risks assessment for people.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There was no evidence of how leaders shared the organisational strategy with staff and how people’s and staff’s input was sought to contribute to meeting the organisational goals.

Equality and diversity within the service was promoted. However, some staff told us that they had experienced some inequalities, and these had not always been addressed promptly once the concerns were raised.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

Leaders were visible and active within the organisation. However, they were not always alerted to the poor experience and outcomes people experienced.

The registered manager engaged with people and staff and staff spoke positively about them. One person told us, “The manager is helpful and easy to talk to.” One staff member told us, “The manager is very supportive of me. They put their trust in me.”

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There was some learning undertaken. However, it was not always clear how the identified areas of learning were followed up and used to improve the overall delivery of care and support to people.

There was evidence of systems of oversight and governance in place. However, these had not always been effective as they did not identify some of the issues we found during this assessment. For example, the health and safety audits and daily work rounds checks did not identify issues regarding fire safety within the home, beds not having brakes applied to ensure their safety or that people did not always have access to drinks or means of calling for help when needed.

Following our assessment the registered manager took prompt action to address these findings.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our assessment. Staff and people and their relatives spoke positively about the registered manager and provider. One person told us,” The manager is nice.” One relative told us,” The manager is approachable and communication from the home has always been very good.” One staff member told us,” Manager has been very good to me. I can always talk to them.”

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider worked with others to support meeting outcome for people. We received positive feedback from other stakeholders and the provider’s partners. One stakeholder told us, “The management team has been very responsive. The registered manager has been passionate about addressing issues and they have worked well with us. “Another stakeholder told us, “They flag things to us and we action it and they follow it through.”

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Some learning was undertaken. However, learning opportunities were not always identified. For example, completed health and safety audits regarding the fire safety failed to identify obstructed fire exits as well as fire hazards in people’s bedroom. Checks completed by the registered manager, such as daily walk rounds failed to identify issues we found during this assessment.