Sutherland Court

maximum of 74 people, some of who may be living with a dementia related condition. At the time of the inspection 64 people were resident.

We found the following examples of good practice.

There were ample supplies of PPE. Staff understood how to put on, take off and dispose of PPE in a safe way.

A range of IPC training had been completed by the staff meaning IPC measures were fully understood and implemented.

Enhanced cleaning schedules were in place to ensure high touch areas were cleaned frequently.

Staff were supporting people to maintain family and social contacts in line with government guidance around visiting. Additional measures were in place including video calls and phone calls. Relatives were complimentary of the way the staff were managing visiting.

All staff were fully vaccinated and systems were in place for recording the vaccination status of staff and non-exempt visitors.

We found the following examples of good practice.

• Information, including national guidance was available throughout the home. These resources were to support staff, people and visitors to understand and follow to safe infection control practices.

• Sufficient stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE) were available. This was appropriately stored and we observed staff to use this safely to reduce the risk of cross contamination and spread of infection. Staff had undertaken training and were aware of how to put on and take off PPE appropriately.

• Infection control champions were in place. These staff had received additional infection control training and were available to provide support and advice to the whole staff team. There were systems in place to ensure infection control audits were carried out and actions were taken to address any areas of improvement.

• Systems were in place to support people and staff to maintain social distancing. This included environmental changes such as, spacing out furniture to encourage people not to sit too close to each other.

• Enhanced cleaning schedules were in place to ensure regularly touched surfaces were cleaned throughout the day.

• Systems were in place to support people to maintain contact with their friends and family. This included people being supported with window and garden visits. In line with updated government guidance, plans were being considered of how to introduce indoor visits for people safely. Technology was also used to support people to maintain contact with their loved ones. This helped minimise the impact of the pandemic on people’s wellbeing.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

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.

Sutherland Court provides personal care for up to 74 older people, including people with dementia- related conditions. Nursing care is not provided at the home. At the time of our inspection there were 65 people living at the home.

The service had a registered manager. 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. At the time of the inspection the registered manager was on leave of absence and an acting manager was in post.

We found that people’s care was provided in a safe, comfortable and hygienic environment. Risks to personal safety were suitably assessed and managed to keep people safe from harm. There were robust safeguarding procedures which protected people against the risk of abuse. Enough staff were employed at the home, enabling people to be safely supported and have continuity of care.

The service had made appropriate arrangements for meeting health care needs and assisting people to take their medicines safely. A varied menu with choices of meals was offered and any special dietary needs were met. Nutrition was closely monitored and dietetic support was requested when needed.

Staff were provided with training relevant to their roles and responsibilities to ensure people received care that was effective in meeting their needs. Systems were in place to supervise staff and support them in their personal development.

People had been consulted about and agreed to their care and treatment. Where people were unable to give consent, formal processes to uphold their rights were undertaken.

The staff knew people well and understood their diverse needs. They were kind and caring in their interactions and promoted people’s privacy and dignity. Staff treated people as individuals and supported them to make choices and decisions about their care.

Care needs were regularly assessed and people had individualised care plans which took into account how they preferred to be supported. People could pursue their leisure interests and had access to a programme of social activities for stimulation.

The acting manager provided leadership within the home and was supported by the provider’s management team. They promoted an inclusive atmosphere and encouraged people, their representatives and staff to be involved in the way the home was run.

There was a clear complaints procedure and any concerns received were taken seriously and managed in a timely way. A variety of methods were used to monitor the quality of the service and make sure any necessary improvements were implemented.

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

Risks to people's personal safety were assessed and managed to enable their care to be delivered safely.

Staff were trained to protect vulnerable people from abuse and any allegations that people may have been harmed were responded to appropriately.

The home had robust arrangements for supporting people with their prescribed medicines.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people's care needs. Staffing was kept under review and took account of the numbers of people living at the home and the extent of care they required.

Is the service effective?

People's care was suitably planned and checked at regular intervals to make sure it remained effective.

People living at the home, and their relatives, told us they were pleased with their care and support. One person told us, 'I get plenty of help with the things I can't do myself.' Relatives said, 'All her needs are met, I've no worries about that'; and, 'The staff have been great. They've done everything possible to keep X comfortable and happy'.

Is the service caring?

Care was planned and provided according to individuals' needs and wishes. People and their relatives described staff as kind and caring and this was confirmed by our observations. We saw there was a relaxed atmosphere with flexible routines and people were able to do things at their own pace.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs were fully assessed before they came to live at the home. Care was then reviewed at regular intervals and adapted in response to people's changing needs.

Is the service well-led?

At the time of this inspection the registered manager was on extended leave of absence and the home was being managed by an acting manager. The acting manager was supported by senior management and the senior care staff team to ensure people were provided with continuity of care. Thorough quality assurance processes were in place to check that standards were maintained. These included routinely asking people for their feedback on the running of the home. People and relatives we talked with told us they were satisfied and had no complaints about the service they received.

We saw people were cared for effectively and care was planned to meet individuals' needs.

The home had appropriate arrangements to manage medicines that kept people safe.

There was sufficient staff to provide care and support.

The provider had a robust system in place to record and monitor complaints. Complaints were taken seriously and responded to appropriately.

The representatives or advocates of people who used the service were positive about the care and support provided. People's comments included, 'I really like it here', and, 'I have everything I need. The staff are lovely'.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.