Sutherland Court

Updated 1 March 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. We also received information of concern about visiting arrangements at this service. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 9 February 2022 and was unannounced.

Updated 1 March 2022

Sutherland Court is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 74 people. At the time of the inspection the home had the maximum number of people living at the service, some of whom were living with a dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection in February 2016 we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

We found care plans were consistent in the level of detail and person-centred information they contained. Person-centred care planning is a way of helping someone to plan their care and support, focusing on what is important to them. Care staff knew people well and delivered personalised care to people. Risk assessments were in place related to the delivery of care and the environment.

People and relatives spoke positively about the service. We saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff treated people with warmth, compassion and kindness at times when they required support. Staff we spoke with thought they created a caring atmosphere.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and people told us they felt safe. Incidents were reported to the appropriate authorities and investigated. Staff understood their responsibility in safeguarding people and told us of the action they would take if they had concerns about harm being caused to people.

The administration and management of medicines was safe.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The best interest’s decision-making process had been consistently followed for people who lacked capacity to make certain decisions themselves.

The service was homely and had been personalised to meet the needs of people. Staff followed infection control procedures and the home was clean and tidy.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of people. Safe recruitment procedures were followed during the employment of new staff. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervisions and appraisals. A recognition scheme was in place to show staff they were valued. Training the provider had deemed to be mandatory were completed by staff.

People were offered a choice of meals and we noted that the food provided was well presented and looked appetising. The environment for dining was helpful in making the meal time experience pleasant for people. People told us the food they received was excellent.

Records were available to highlight if people required a specific textured meal due to swallowing difficulties.

A range of checks and audits were carried out to monitor the quality of the service. Care records were complete and up to date, they were maintained to a good standard and stored securely so they remained confidential. Repeat incidents were reviewed to ensure any opportunities to learn were identified.

People, relatives, staff and professionals were positive about the leadership of the home and the registered manager. The provider was meeting legal requirements in relation to notifying CQC of events and displaying their current quality rating.

A visiting professional spoke of a positive working relationship and that care staff were always welcoming. Relatives we spoke to said that their relative received excellent care.