You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 December 2016

We inspected Sotwell Hill House on 8 November 2016. This was an unannounced inspection.

Sotwell Hill House is a care home providing accommodation for people requiring personal care. The service supports older people with a variety of conditions which includes people living with dementia. At the time of our visit there were 29 people living in the service.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 4 and 6 November 2015. Breaches of legal requirements were found relating to the management of risks to people and the safe management of medicines. We also found that care and treatment was not always provided with the consent of the relevant person. The provider sent us an action plan stating the action they would take to improve the service to the required standard. We undertook this comprehensive inspection on 8 November 2016 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirements. At this inspection we found actions had been completed and improvements made.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 were greeted warmly by the registered manager and staff at the service. The atmosphere was open and friendly.

People told us they felt safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff had received regular training to make sure they understood how to recognise and report safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified.

People were supported by staff who were knowledgeable about people’s needs and provided support with compassion and kindness. People received high quality care that was personalised and met their needs.

Where risks to people had been identified risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were consistently maintained. The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and all staff applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. The registered manager was knowledgeable about the MCA and how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity were protected, this included Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People told us they enjoyed the food and had enough to eat and drink. Where people required support with their food and drink they were supported appropriately.

The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning needs were identified and action taken to make improvements which promoted people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.

People told they enjoyed activities in the home and the provider provided a range of activities for people to engage with. This included religious services and trips outside of the home.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff supervisions and meetings were scheduled as were annual appraisals. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and there was a good level of communication within the service.

People and their relatives told us the service was friendly, responsive and well managed. People knew the registered manager and staff and spoke positivel

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 December 2016

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

People told us they felt safe. Staff knew how to identify and raise concerns.

Risks to people were managed and assessments were in place to manage the risks and keep people safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 December 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the training and knowledge to support them effectively.

Staff received support and supervisions and had access to further training and development.

Staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and understood and applied its principles.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 December 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, compassionate and respectful and treated people and their relatives with dignity and respect.

Staff gave people the time to express their wishes and respected the decisions they made. People were involved in their care.

The service promoted people’s independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 December 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans were personalised and gave clear guidance for staff on how to support people.

People knew how to raise concerns and were confident action would be taken.

People’s needs were assessed prior to receiving any care to make sure their needs could be met.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 December 2016

The service was well led.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of service and look for continuous improvement.

People knew the registered manager and spoke to them with confidence.

There was a whistle blowing policy in place that was available to staff around the service. Staff knew how to raise concerns.