Archived: Sunnydale

We found the following examples of good practice.

There were systems and processes in place, in line with guidance, to ensure visitors to the house did not introduce and spread Covid-19. All visitors were required to show evidence of vaccination and a negative lateral flow test before entry into the house was allowed.

Staff followed government guidance in relation to personal protective equipment (PPE). We saw all staff were wearing face masks. Hand sanitiser and PPE was readily available throughout the service.

All staff and people living at Sunnydale were being Covid-19 tested in line with current guidance. Appropriate processes were in place should anyone display any symptoms of Covid-19.

There were cleaning schedules in place, and we observed the house to be clean and odour-free.

Staff supported people’s social and emotional wellbeing. Alternative forms of maintaining social contact were in place including video calls and a partitioned visiting pod in the garden. At the time of our inspection visits had been paused due to a Covid outbreak. Visiting was due to resume in line with guidance.

All staff had undertaken training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and PPE.

Policies and audits relating to infection prevention control, including coronavirus were up-to-date.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The home has 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.

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 supported this practice.

People received care which was extremely person centred and responsive to their needs. They were supported and fully engaged in activities that were meaningful to them.

People’s needs had been identified, and from talking to people who used the service, we found people’s needs were met by staff who knew them well. Care records we saw were very detailed and clearly explained people’s needs.

Staff continuously looked for ways to improve care, so people had positive experiences and led fulfilling and meaningful lives. They liaised with professionals to make sure that people's health care needs were met.

Social interaction and community acceptance was important and opportunities to access and integrate into the local community was a priority.

There was a robust recruitment system and all staff had completed an induction and training as required by the registered provider. Staff had received formal supervision and had an up to date annual appraisal of their work performance.

There were systems in place for monitoring quality, which were effective. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

People told us they felt safe and they had access to procedures which enabled them to raise any concerns or complaints. Medication procedures were safe and staff had received appropriate training in this area.

Staff and people who used the service who we spoke with told us the registered manager was approachable, there was an open-door policy and the service was well led.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Sunnydale provides accommodation and care for up to nine people, who have a learning disability, autism or a mental health condition; some of which have complex needs. At the time of our inspection the service was full with nine people currently using the service. The home offers accommodation across two floors and is situated in heart of the village of Featherstone, with good access to local shops and services. The service did not have a registered manager at the time of our inspection, however there was a manager (from another service in the registered providers group of services) who had been overseeing the service and there was a newly appointed manager in post, who told us they would be applying to register with the Care Quality Commission when they had completed their induction and probationary period.

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.

People who used the service told us they felt extremely safe and well cared for. We saw the standard of care was exceptional throughout the service. There were always plenty of staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who used the service safely. The ratios of staff also meant that staff could introduce spontaneous activities which enriched the lives of all the people who used the service. We found staff were passionate in the way in which they spoke about their roles and the achievements and progress of the people they supported.

We found the staff’s understanding of each person they supported was in depth to such a degree that people who used the service described the staff and other people they lived with as their family. The level of knowledge, empathy and thoughtfulness which went into the person centred care planning and delivery meant that people were kept safe and were nurtured. We saw throughout the care plans and by speaking with staff that innovative approaches were used to support people to achieve goals which had previously been thought to be unachievable. People had made progress with the support of staff which had surpassed their own expectations and those of their families and friends.

Staff used their extensive knowledge of people who used the service as the basis for their care planning, reviews of their care plans and risk assessments. Care plans and risk assessments were continually evolving as people who used the service gained new skills and abilities and gained higher levels of independence as a result. Staff also used this personal knowledge to explore how they could introduce new experiences and hobbies which they thought would be interesting to people, based on their personality and observations of similar experiences which they had enjoyed and benefited from.

We found there were very rarely any incidents of behaviour which was challenging to others in the home, despite the complex needs and historical patterns of behaviour of some of the people who used the service. This was achieved by staff understanding the history of each person, the behaviour which would be usual for them, what may ‘trigger’ an episode of challenge and working cohesively as a team to consistently remove these triggers to create the safest possible environment.

People who used the service were actively encouraged to be involved in the planning of their daily lives, they were free to choose how their time was spent, and when outings were planned, where they went and wherever possible who they wanted to share their chosen experience with in terms of which member of staff supported them. People in the service were aware of their personal financial constraints and staff worked hard with people to enable them to understand that they needed to budget and save to achieve their more ambitious plans for holidays. For example some people had expressed a desire to go to Euro Disney in Paris, and there was a conversation around how expensive this would be and how they would need to look at saving for a period of time to be able to achieve this goal.

We found the service was extremely warm and welcoming, and felt very much like visiting a family home. Throughout the day we spent at the service people who used the service were very keen and enthusiastic in wanting to speak with us and to tell us about their experiences of using the service. People who used the service were very keen to interact with our inspector and to make sure that they were well supplied with refreshments and had everything they needed.

We found the management of the service was very visible, open and approachable. There was clear, detailed oversight of the service and input to the service by the day to day managers and people at higher levels of senior management within Millennium Care Services. There were processes throughout the service which constantly monitored the quality of the service and we saw very clear evidence that there was a programme of continuous improvement in place and this was being carried out in line with the timescales which had been put in place.

We spoke with three members of staff. They all told us that the people who used the service were treated with dignity and respect. One staff member told us that 'the staff team here are very good', another staff member told us they felt supported and received regular feedback on their performance.

We looked at three care plans. We saw that they were comprehensive and addresses the needs of each individual. The care plans included risk assessments that were developed to reduce the risk of harm to the people who used the service.

We saw that staff had undergone safeguarding training. One of the people we spoke with told us 'I feel safe living here'