We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sunnyside Respite Service 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 Sunnyside Respite Service, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People’s relatives were able to visit them in a safe way and in line with government guidance. Visits were booked in advance to help with maintaining social distancing. People were also supported to keep in touch with their relatives by social media, video calls, texts and telephone calls.
Infection prevention and control measures were in place and staff understood how to prevent the spread of infection. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with current guidance. Staff completed training in infection control, hand hygiene and putting on and taking off PPE.
There were measures in place to prevent the spread of infection at the entrance, and throughout the building. These included plentiful supplies of PPE and hand sanitiser. People using the service and staff were tested for COVID-19 regularly in line with government guidance. People were supported to self-isolate if they tested positive. The home was very clean and areas such as door handles and light switches were cleaned regularly.
Effective systems were in place to ensure visitors to the service followed government guidelines for wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Facilities were available for visitors to sanitise their hands and put on PPE. Screening questions, a temperature check and lateral flow screening test were standard requirements for all visitors.
Staff supervised all visitors to ensure social distancing and infection control guidelines were followed.
A regular programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for staff and people who lived in the service. There had been a good uptake of people receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
All staff were trained in safe infection, prevention and control (IPC) practices. We observed staff wearing appropriate PPE and sufficient supplies were available.
The environment was clean, hygienic and well ventilated. Cleaning schedules were in place and being followed.
People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives in different ways including video calls and window visits. The service had implemented a system to allow contact visits which followed government guidelines.
The service's IPC policy was up to date and in line with current guidance. The service had plans in place and knew how to respond to an outbreak of infection to ensure the safety of people and staff.
Sunnyside Respite Service is care home providing care and support for 13 younger adults with a learning disability at the time of our inspection. The service can support up to 15 people.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 15 people in two separate buildings. One building was used for respite care and could accommodate up to four people at any one time. The other building supported people permanently, ten people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area. Staff were discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were safe, and staff understood safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures and when they would be required to instigate. Accidents and incidents were monitored, and lessons were learnt. There were adequate numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment systems were in place and followed.
Medication management was safe, people received their medication as prescribed. Risks associated with people’s care and support had been identified, contained good detail to ensure risks were managed safely.
Staff were very knowledgeable about people needs, care was person-centred and individualised. Staff said training was good and from talking with staff and our observations it was effective. Staff were supervised and supported.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People received a balanced diet that met their needs. People had access to health care professionals. The environment was well maintained and homely. There was also access to outside space.
Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. Our observations evidenced staff interacted extremely positively with people and knew them well. Relatives told us the staff were lovely and genuinely cared. People were involved in their care planning to ensure their decisions and choices were reflected. We looked at care records and found they had identified people’s needs and reflect people’s choices. People received individualised, personalised care.
People were listened to and complaints were appropriately dealt with and resolved. Where appropriate end of life care was included in care plans to ensure people’s decisions were respected.
There was a manager who was registered with CQC. Quality monitoring was carried out using various audits tools. The service promoted an open, inclusive and positive culture. People and relatives were involved in the service, quality questionnaires were sent out and regular meetings were held.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published March 2017). The service remains rated good.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise signs of potential abuse and aware of the reporting procedures. Assessments identified risks to people and management plans to reduce the risks were in place. People we spoke with told us they felt safe and relatives also said the home provided safe care.
Recruitment processes were robust so helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. Staff had completed an induction at the beginning of their employment. They had access to a varied training programme and regular support and supervision was available to help them meet the needs of the people they cared for.
At the time of the inspection there was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Relatives we spoke with confirmed when they visited there were sufficient staff on duty.
Systems were in place to make sure people received their medications safely, which included key staff receiving medication training and regular audits of the system.
People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
People were treated with respect .People and their relatives told us staff were kind and very caring. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of how they respected people’s preferences and ensured their privacy and dignity was maintained. We saw staff took account of people’s individual needs and preferences while supporting them.
Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and care plans were in place. However, these needed updating. The registered manager told us this had been identified and was being actioned.
People had access to activities and stimulation, as well as regular outings into the community.
There was a system in place to tell people how to raise concerns and how these would be managed. People told us they would feel comfortable raising any concerns with the management team.
There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Action plans were implemented for any improvements required and these were followed by staff.
Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Sunnyside Respite Service is a 15 bedded service providing respite and long stay nursing care to people with learning disabilities. Each person’s room is provided with all necessary aids and adaptations to suit their individual requirements. The service is provided in two separate buildings. There are well appointed communal areas for dining and relaxation. The service is located in the Rotherham suburb of Sunnyside.
The home had a registered manager who had been registered since 2004. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law, as does the provider.
We last inspected the service in December 2013 and found they were meeting the regulations we looked at.
People told us they felt safe in the home and we saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable on safeguarding and were able to explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made.
The registered manager told us some staff had recently delayed in reporting an incident, which she had dealt with. The staff were aware they should have reported it sooner but were unsure as it was relating to an agency worker. We saw that the registered manager had dealt with this appropriately and taken immediate action to ensure that it did not happen again.
People were protected against the risk of unlawful or excessive control or restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements for staff to respond appropriately to people who communicated through their behaviour or actions.
The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were only used when it was considered to be in the person’s best interest. This legislation is used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own. The registered manager demonstrated a good awareness of their role in protecting people’s rights and recording decisions made in their best interest.
We found people were cared for, or supported by, sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.
Suitable arrangements were in place and people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met.
People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made.
People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The support plans contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. Care and support was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and staff knew people well. The support plans included risk assessments.
Our observations during the inspection evidenced staff had good relationships with the people living at the home and the atmosphere was happy, relaxed and inclusive.
We also observed interactions between staff and people living in the home and staff were kind and respectful to people when they were supporting them. Staff were aware of the values of the service and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.
A wide range of activities were provided both in-house and in the community. We saw people were involved and consulted about all aspects of their care and support, where they were able, including any suggestions for activities. Some people told us they would like more access to the community, especially at weekend when this was difficult if the respite service was full.
The registered manager told us they had received no formal complaints in the last twelve months, but was aware of how to respond if required. People we spoke with did not raise any complaints or concerns about living at the home. Relatives we spoke with told us they had no concerns but would discuss with the staff or manager if they needed to raise any issues. They told us if they had raised concerns in the past they had always been dealt with appropriately.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager and the company’s regional manager. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress.
People were asked for their consent before staff provided support or treatment. For example people were choosing what they wanted to eat for their lunch when they returned from an outing.
Relatives we spoke with told us the staff were very good they treated people with respect and dignity and people were always given choices.
We found that medicines were recorded and administered safely and appropriately. Staff explained to us the procedures in place to ensure this.
We found there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff employed to meet people's needs.
The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.
There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.
Improvements had been made in relation to medication. Stock checks were carried out on a nightly basis and the identification and recording of any errors was clear and accurate.
People's personal records had improved. They were accurate and mostly fit for purpose. They contained sufficient detail so that staff understood how to meet people's needs and deliver care in a safe and appropriate manner.
We identified during the course of the inspection that the arrangements for auditing the service were not adequate. This meant that areas requiring improvement were not always recognised and addressed.
We looked at the medication records of seven people who were using the service on the day of the inspection, and found that there was evidence of non-compliance in six of the seven records we looked at.
Many of the people using the service at the time of the inspection were not able to tell us about their experience. We therefore used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Using this, we saw that people experienced care and support from staff who understood their needs, and spoke to them with respect and warmth.