You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 December 2018

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection which took place on 22 November 2018.

Sunlight House is a ‘care home’. People living there received personal care and support as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home can accommodate up to four people in one adapted building and specialises in supporting younger adults with mental health needs, learning disabilities and autism. There were three people living at the care home at the time of our inspection.

The care home has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service continues to be owned and managed by an individual who is the registered provider. A registered provider is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Registered providers 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 our last inspection of the service in September 2017, we rated them ‘Requires Improvement’ overall and for the two key questions, ‘Is the service responsive’ and ‘well-led’? This was because the provider had failed to submit statutory notifications to us about several police incidents involving people using the service. Providers are required by law to notify the CQC without delay about the occurrence of any incidents or events that adversely affect the health, safety and well-being of people using the service.

In addition, we found wholly inappropriate language had been used to describe people in their care plan. We discussed this issue with the registered provider at the time, who agreed to review and amended care plans where appropriate and to remind staff not to use inappropriate language to describe people in future.

At this comprehensive inspection we found the provider had taken appropriate action to address all the issues we identified at their last inspection. This included improving their arrangements for notifying the CQC about significant incidents involving the people living at the home and the language being used by staff in people’s care plans. Consequently, we have improved the service’s overall rating from ‘Requires Improvement’ to ‘Good’ and for the two key questions, ‘Is the service responsive and well-led?’. The ratings for the key questions, ‘Is the service effective and caring?’ remain ‘Good’.

However, the rating for the key question, ‘Is the service safe?’ has deteriorated from ‘Good’ to ‘Requires Improvement’. This is because we found a number of uncovered radiators in bedrooms and communal areas where the possible risk of harm people living in the home might face had not been properly risk assessed. We discussed this health and safety issue with the registered provider at the time of our inspection who agreed to risk assess all the home’s radiators and immediately cover those radiators deemed to pose a potential hazard to people living in the home.

In addition, although we found staff had completed end of life care training, people’s end of life care preferences and choices had not been sought or recorded in their care plan. We also discussed this matter with the registered provider who agreed to sensitively raise this matter with the people who lived at the home and where necessary record their comments in their care plan.

Progress made by the provider to achieve both the aims described above will be assessed at their next inspection.

People continued to be happy with the care and support they received at the Sunlight House. We saw staff continued to look after people in

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 14 December 2018

Some aspects of the service are no longer safe and therefore their rating for this key question has deteriorated from �Good� to �Requires Improvement�.

This was because we found a number of uncovered radiators in bedrooms and some communal areas which had not been risk assessed. We discussed this health and safety issue with the registered provider at the time of our inspection who agreed to risk assess all the home�s radiators and immediately cover those identified as posing a potential hazard to people living in the home.

There continued to be robust procedures in place to safeguard people the provider supported from harm and abuse. Staff were familiar with how to recognise and report abuse.

Staff recruitment procedures prevented people from being supported by unsuitable staff. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff deployed to keep people safe and respond promptly to their needs and wishes.

Medicines continued to be managed safely and people received them as prescribed where the service was responsible for this.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 December 2018

The service continues to be effective and retains its �Good� rating for this key question.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 December 2018

The service continues to be caring and retains its �Good� rating for this key question.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 December 2018

The service has improved from 'Requires Improvement' to 'Good' for this key question and is now considered responsive.

This was because the provider had taken appropriate action to ensure the language staff used to describe people they supported in their care plan was �appropriate�.

However, although we saw staff had completed their end of life care training, we found people�s preferences and choices for their end of life care was not recorded in their care plan. We discussed this matter with the registered provider who agreed to sensitively raise it with the people who lived at the home to include their comments peoples care plans.

People were involved in discussions and decisions about their care and support they received. Staff understood the individual needs, preferences and interests of the people they supported.

People had sufficient opportunities to participate in a wide

variety of meaningful social, leisure and educational activities at home and in the local community.

People felt comfortable raising issues and concerns with staff. The provider had arrangements in place to deal with complaints appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 December 2018

The service has improved from 'Requires Improvement' to 'Good' for this key question and is now considered well-led.

This was because the provider had taken appropriate action to ensure as required by law they notified us without delay about the occurrence of any incidents or events that adversely affected the health, safety and well-being of people they supported.

The registered provider continued to be highly regarded by people living in the home and their professional representatives. People felt the managers were accessible and approachable.

The provider still had effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

People, their relatives, professional representatives and staff were all involved in developing the service. Their feedback was continually sought and used to drive improvement.

The provider worked in close partnership with external mental health, health and social care professionals, agencies and bodies.