Archived: Sunrise Operations V.W. Limited

The inspection took place on 30 November 2016 and was unannounced.

The home 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.

The service was last inspected on 4 February 2014, where we identified breaches in the regulations in relation to staffing and record keeping. Following that inspection, the provider wrote to us to tell us the action they had taken to address the concerns raised. This inspection found that the provider had made the improvements they told us they had and the previous requirements were therefore met. No new breaches of Regulations were identified as a result of this inspection.

Sunrise Virginia Water was well-led with good systems in place to provide support that was safe, effective, caring and responsive. The leadership team had fostered a positive and open culture where people, their representatives and staff were encouraged to express their ideas and thoughts. As such, the atmosphere within the service was relaxed, friendly and inclusive.

Each person was appropriately assessed and had an individualised plan of care which outlined how their needs would be met. People were involved at each stage of planning their care to ensure staff provided support in a way that met their needs, preferences and expectations.

There were systems in place to gain consent from people and staff understood the importance of involving people in their care and respecting their wishes. Not all staff however, were able to demonstrate they knew about the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and as the service provides support to a significant number of people living with dementia, this is an important area for the provider to further develop.

The service was well staffed by suitable and well trained individuals who were able to deliver support to people in a safe and effective way. Appropriate checks were undertaken when recruiting new staff to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

The service had overall good systems to identify and manage risks to people and to maintain the safety of the service as a whole. People were further protected from the risk of abuse or avoidable harm, because staff understood their role in safeguarding them.

Staff worked in partnership with other health care professionals to help keep people healthy and well. There were good systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

The provision of plentiful good quality meals and drinks and the monitoring of people at risk meant that people received appropriate nutrition and hydration. Furthermore, mealtimes were a sociable occasion which people enjoyed.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Support was provided with compassion and wherever possible people’s independence was promoted. People had choice and control over their lives and staff respected their privacy. Visitors were welcomed into the home at all times and people were encouraged to lead their lives as they wished.

The service offered an extensive range of activities and was constantly striving for new ways of engaging people and providing them with opportunities which were meaningful and interesting to them.

The management team continuously reviewed and monitored the quality and safety of the service and responded openly and proactively to any feedback received.

As part of our inspection we spoke with 10 people who lived in the home, two visitors, one healthcare professional and five staff, as well as the registered manager. We also left comments cards for people to let us know about their views on the home. We received five completed cards.

We were accompanied in our inspection by an expert by experience as well as a specialist adviser. We observed the care that people received and spoke to people, relatives and staff. We also reviewed six care plans and people's associated records in depth of people who lived in Sunrise who had dementia.

People that we spoke with told us that staff treated them well and knew their individual preferences, care and treatment needs. One person told us the staff were "Wonderful."

Some of the people who lived in the home did not have the ability to make decisions about

their care, but the relatives we spoke with undertook decisions on the family member's

behalf.

As part of our themed inspection, we looked at what arrangements were in place for people to access other health care. We were told by one relative that the home called upon local doctors and community nurses to attend to the people who lived at Sunrise whenever needed.

We found by speaking to staff, observation and looking at records, that there were not always the minimum number of staff on duty.

The manager told us that they regularly assessed the quality of the service they provided.

This was done by speaking to people or their relatives and carrying out an annual family satisfaction survey.

We found that the records for some of the people who used the service were not comprehensive. This would make a difficult for a new member of staff to establish the needs of a person.

The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received. They told us the home provided care to a very good standard and that the staff were friendly and helpful. They also told us they had no concerns with their medication and felt they were well supported by the staff.

The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the staff and felt there were enough staff at the home. They told us that they had no concerns about the care they received. They told us that if they had any concerns or complaints, they would speak to the manager. The relative of a person using the service told us they had previously raised a concern about a member of staff and this was addressed appropriately by the provider.