We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sherrington House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Sherrington House, you can give feedback on this service.
Sherrington House is a residential care home that provides personal care for up to 48 people. The home is arranged over two floors and at the time of the inspection there were 43 people living in the home. Most of these people were older adults with needs associated with physical disability, dementia or long-term health conditions.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were consistently treated with kindness and compassion. Staff and the management team knew people well and spoke with and about them in a caring way. People’s rights to privacy, dignity and independence were promoted and respected.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. There was a welcoming atmosphere in the home.
People were kept safe by staff. Identified risks to people were regularly assessed and mitigated to reduce the risks of harm and abuse. There were enough safely recruited, trained and supported staff to meet people’s needs. The home met the needs of the people living there and was clean and hygienic throughout.
People’s care records were individual and outlined their needs. People had access to healthcare services and appropriate referrals were made when their needs changed. Safe management of medicines was in place.
Feedback from people, relatives and professionals expressed confidence they could raise issues or concerns with any member of staff or the management team and these would be addressed.
The registered manager was held in high regard and there was visible leadership in the home. Quality assurance and risk management systems to independently identify issues or to improve the service provided were in place which supported effective governance and oversight arrangements.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 29 September 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
During our last inspection on 10 February 2015 the service was rated good overall, with all the key questions rated as good. During this inspection we found that the service remained good.
There was a registered manager at the service; they had been registered at this service since January 2016.
The people who lived in the service told us that they felt safe and well cared for. There were systems in place which provided guidance for care workers on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe.
There were processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised. There were sufficient numbers of trained and well supported staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. They were recruited using a robust recruitment process for employing staff appropriately to care for vulnerable people.
Processes and procedures were in place to receive, record, store and administer medicines safely. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.
Both the registered manager and the staff understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager knew how to make a referral if required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services.
We saw many examples of positive and caring interactions between the staff and people living in the service. People were able to express their views and staff listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity.
People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. The service listened to people’s experiences, concerns and complaints. Staff took steps to investigate complaints and to make any changes needed.
The registered manager was supported by the organisation and the staff they managed told us that the registered manager was open, supportive and had good management skills. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service offered people.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
This inspection took place on 10 and 11 February 2015 and was unannounced.
Sherrington House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 47 older people who require 24 hour support and care. Some people are living with dementia. There were 44 people living in the service when we inspected.
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.
Staff understood their responsibilities to ensure people were kept safe and knew who to report any concerns to.
There were procedures and processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included checks on the environment and risk assessments which identified how risks to people were minimised.
There were sufficient numbers of staff who were supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff were available when people needed assistance, care and support.
There were appropriate arrangements in place to ensure people’s medicines were stored and administered safety.
Staff had good relationships with the people and their representatives and they were attentive to their needs. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner.
People were supported to see, when needed, health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.
People, or their representatives, were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People’s care plans had been tailored to the individual and contained information about how they communicated and their ability to make decisions.
People’s nutritional needs were being met. Where issues were identified, for example, where a person was losing too much weight, appropriate referrals were made to other professionals. The service took action to ensure that people’s dietary needs were identified and met.
People knew how to make a complaint if they were not happy with the service they were provided with. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, acted on and used to improve the service.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls addressed. As a result, it would lead to continued improvements in the quality of the service being provided.
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had improved arrangements in place to manage medicines.
During this inspection we again assessed if people's medicines were being managed safely and if arrangements were in place to protect people against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medication. We conducted a sample audit of medicines and found there were gaps in the records and that there were numerical discrepancies of medicines so we could not be assured people were being given their medicines as intended by prescribers. We noted some records were incomplete when people were not administered their medicines. We also noted some medicines had not been obtained and so they were not available to administer as intended by prescribers. We found that the morning medicine round was excessively lengthy. We also noted a lack of written information to assist staff in safely administering some medicines.
Whilst there were arrangements in place for the secure storage of medicines, we noted a lack of records confirming that medicines requiring refrigeration were stored within the accepted temperature range.
We noted that there were gaps in records of medicine administration and we could not be assured that medication was being administered as intended by the prescriber. There was not a system in place to check that the amount of medication people had received from the pharmacy was equal to the amount that had been administered or was still due to be administered.
The majority of the care records we looked at were accurate and we could see that they had been reviewed on a regular basis. This meant that staff had access to up to date information about people's care needs to enable them to deliver safe and effective care.
One person we spoke with told us, 'To be honest some days it's alright and some days it isn't. Too many things going on and I like to be quiet.' Another person said, 'The staff are great but sometimes other people are a bit noisy. The food is very good ' I've got no complaints about that.'
We saw that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.
Staff received appropriate professional development and were able, from time to time, to obtain further relevant qualifications. We also saw that people had their comments and complaints listened to and acted on without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint.
A member of staff told us, 'I love this home. There is something special about it. You feel valued and you get lots of thanks from managers and colleagues.'
We found that there were not always effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. We also found that people's personal records including medical records were not always accurate and fit for purpose.
During our inspection we observed that the staff were attentive to people's needs. Staff interacted with people using the service in a friendly, respectful and professional manner. We saw that staff sought their agreement before providing any support or assistance.
Most of the people we saw were relaxed, engaged with their surroundings and interacted well with each other. We spent time in the dining room and saw that activities were an ongoing experience.