You are here

Archived: Sutton House Nursing Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 March 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 31 January 2018 and was unannounced. At the last comprehensive inspection on 6 and 7 June 2017, the service had an overall rating of ‘Requires Improvement’ and a rating of ‘Inadequate’ in Safe. We had found concerns with medicines management, staffing numbers and overall governance of the service. Since the last inspection, the registered manager has kept the Care Quality Commission (CQC) informed and when requested, sent us an updated action plan.

Sutton House Nursing Home is registered to provide personal and nursing care to a maximum of 38 people, some of whom may be living with dementia or have physical disabilities. It is situated in the village of Sutton, close to local amenities. The home has three floors serviced by a passenger lift and stairs with single occupancy and shared bedrooms on the first and second floor. There is a large lounge area, a small quiet lounge and a dining room all situated on the ground floor. There is a garden at the front and the side of the building.

Sutton House Nursing Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 found improvements had been made in the quality monitoring of the service delivered to people. The audits and checks highlighted when issues required addressing and were followed up by relevant staff. There were surveys, questionnaires and meetings in order for people to express their views.

There were improvements in the management of medicines and stock control was more effective. This meant that people received their medicines as prescribed and there were no delays when new prescriptions were issued.

Staff knew how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. They had completed safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns and who to speak to about them. We saw people had assessments to help guide staff in how to minimise risk and keep people safe.

Staffing numbers had increased and were consistently maintained. There was a comment from health professionals about the difficulty in locating care staff, general oversight in the dining room and exiting the building at a peak time in the morning. Staff were busy supporting people to get up or administering medicines at this time. However, the registered manager told us they would resolve this by adjusting ancillary staff deployment at this peak time.

Staff recruitment was robust and employment checks were in place prior to new staff starting work. Staff had access to a range of training, supervision and appraisal which helped them to feel confident when supporting people’s needs.

People told us staff were kind and caring and their privacy and dignity was maintained. 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 treated as individuals and their rights protected.

We found people’s health care needs were met. They had access to community health care professionals when required and referrals to them were made in a timely way.

People’s nutritional needs were met. The menus provided choices and alternatives and special diets were provided. Staff supported people to eat their meals in a sensitive way and the lunchtime experience was a calm and sociable event.

There were activities provided seven days a week to help prevent isolation and encourage social int

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 7 March 2018

The service was safe. While improvements have been made we have not rated the this key question as �Good�; to improve the rating to �Good� would require a longer term track record of consistent good practice.

There had been improvements in the management of medicines and people received them as prescribed.

There was a robust system of staff recruitment to enable checks to be made before staff started work. Improvements had been made in staffing numbers and there was sufficient staff employed to meet people�s needs, although deployment of staff on the ground floor between 8.30 and 9.30am could be improved.

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse by staff training and knowledge of policies and procedures. Risk assessments were completed when people had identified issues of concern. These helped to guide staff in minimising risk.

The environment was clean and safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 March 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported to make their own decisions. When they were assessed as lacking capacity to do this, the provider and registered manager acted in people�s best interest and consulted with relevant people.

People�s health and nutritional needs were met. There was a range of community healthcare professionals to advise and provide treatment and the meals provided to people met their nutritional needs.

Staff had access to a range of training, supervision and support to ensure they felt confident when caring for people and meeting their needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 March 2018

The service was caring.

People told us staff supported them in a kind and caring way. We observed this during the inspection.

People�s privacy and dignity were maintained and their individuality promoted. They were provided with information in accessible formats.

Confidentiality was maintained and personal records stored securely.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People had assessments of their needs completed prior to admission and the information was used to prepare plans of care. Staff told us they had sufficient information to be able to care for people.

Care was delivered to people in ways that met their preferences, likes and dislikes. People received end of life care and relatives were supported through this process.

People were able to participate in a range of activities to help prevent isolation and promote social interaction.

There was a complaints procedure on display and people felt able to raise issues. The provider and registered manager took action when concerns were raised with them.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 March 2018

The service was well-led.

There had been improvements in the quality monitoring of the service delivered to people. Audits had improved and helped to identify issues to be addressed and people�s views were sought via meetings and questionnaires.

People, their relatives and staff told us the service was well-managed and the culture within the service and organisation had improved.

The registered manager provided support and guidance to the staff team. All staff spoken with told us they could raise issues and these would be addressed.