The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Sunrise Operations Tettenhall Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Sunrise of Tettenhall, 73 Wergs Road, Tettenhall, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV6 9BN (01902) 774100

Provided and run by:
Sunrise Operations Tettenhall Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile
Important: This care home is run by two companies: Sunrise Operations Tettenhall Limited and Sunrise Senior Living Limited. These two companies have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home.

All Inspections

2 and 3 September 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 2 and 3 September 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in December 2014 the provider was not meeting the requirements for Staffing. We found at this inspection that the provider was meeting this requirement and had an appropriate number of staff to meet the needs of people.

Sunrise Tettenhall provides accommodation for people who require nursing or personal care, including people with dementia. The home is separated into two units, assisted living and dementia care. At the time of the inspection there were 93 people living in the home, including 24 people in the dementia unit.

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.

People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise any potential abuse and felt confident to report any concerns they had, and people told us they were able to tell staff if they did not feel safe.

There were risk assessments for people to identify any potential risks associated with their care. Staff knew and understood these risk assessments and made sure people were kept safe when providing their care.

There were enough staff available to meet the needs of people in the home. Staff had been recruited using safe recruitment processes.

People’s medicines were not always managed safely. We found there were some errors in recording and management of some medicines. People able to take their own medicines were supported to do this safely.

Staff were well supported and had the skills and knowledge they needed to care for people in the home. Staff offered people choices about their care and followed the legal requirements for people who may not have capacity to make decisions for themselves.

People were provided with the food and drink they needed to maintain their health. There were choices of meals available and drinks and snacks were available throughout the day.

People had access to healthcare services that they needed. There were regular visits to the home by local doctors and other specialist services to keep people healthy.

People were cared for by staff who knew them well and had good caring relationships with them. Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence by making decisions about their care and doing tasks for themselves where possible.

Care was tailored to people’s needs, with detailed care plans for staff to follow. People were provided with a range of activities and access to trips out of the home regularly.

The provider had a complaints policy and people told us they felt confident to raise any concerns they had with the registered manager or care staff.

People were able to be involved in the development of the home, with resident meetings and discussions with the registered manager about improvements or concerns. The registered manager provided clear and visible leadership to the staff team and knew people living in the home well.

The provider had a system to monitor and audit the quality of the service, however, this had not always identified issues that we saw during the inspection. The registered manager used these audits to make changes and improvements to the care provided to people.

17 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008,and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The inspection was unannounced, which meant the staff and provider did not know that an inspection was planned on that day.

This location is registered to provide nursing and personal care for up to 70 people. At the time of the inspection 64 people lived at the home.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

During our inspection we found there were not enough staff to consistently ensure the safety and meet the needs of people who used the service. People who used the service and staff we spoke with told us they had concerns about staffing levels at the home. They told us call bells were not always responded to quickly enough and staff had competing and at times unmanageable demands on their time, which was frustrating and stressful.

We found that the provider was in breach of Regulation 22 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 due to low staffing levels.  You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Staff received specific training to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staff told us that they did not have regular supervision to discuss their performance and development needs. Some staff told us that they had not had an appraisal of their performance and development for over a year.

We observed the staff to be kind, caring and respectful to people when providing support and in their daily interactions with them.

We saw that people’s care plans identified their health and social care needs and outcomes that people wanted to achieve.

People knew who to speak to if they wanted to raise a concern and there were processes in place for responding to complaints. The majority of people we spoke with told us they were happy with how staff provided their care and support. We saw that complaints specific to staffing levels had not been addressed to the satisfaction of everybody.

We discussed the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) with the provider. Some people who used the service did not have the ability to make decisions about some parts of their care and support. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate, decisions are made in people’s best interests when they are unable to do this for themselves. The staff had received training to enable them to follow the legal requirements of the Act and the DoLS.

Records showed that we, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), had been notified, as required by law, of all the incidents in the home that could affect the health, safety and welfare of people.

5 June 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We had received information that there were not enough staff on duty and people were not supported to move safely. During our inspection we spoke with seven of the 53 people who received personal care, seven care staff, one nurse and the manager. We looked at five people's care records, staff rotas and other records associated with the operation of the home.

People told us that they had been involved in planning their care, to include their preferred routines. We saw that staff supported people as described in their plan. One person told us, 'The staff helps me in the areas I need help and I do follow my own routine'.

We saw that the management of any risks to people's care such as the way they were moved or supported, was safe.

We spoke with people about the availability of staff at times they needed them. One person said, 'They will answer the buzzer, you expect to wait a few minutes but they have always responded to me'.

Staff told us there were at times delays, one staff said, 'We sometimes have to leave a person and go and assist another member of staff with another person, it's not nice half way through getting someone up'. The manager was confident that the additional staff support ensured no one experienced unnecessary delays. The manager told us they had recently ordered an upgrade to the call bell system to monitor the time to answer call bells. This should ensure that any delay in responding to calls is identified.

25 July 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We heard from Wolverhampton Social Services that they had received concerns about the care provided. They had investigated these concerns under safeguarding procedures. We were informed that the concerns were not substantiated.

Our visit on 16 July 2012 was unannounced which meant the provider and the staff did not know we were visiting. For part of our visit we were accompanied by an expert by experience. An expert by experience is some one who uses services, or has had experience of services. Our expert by experience observed the interaction between staff and people using the service, and spoke with staff. We found that there was a range of activities for people to enjoy. We saw that people enjoyed these and that there were sufficient staff to support people to engage in activities.

Some people living at the home were not able to tell us about their experiences. To help us to understand the experiences people have we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool. The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helps us to record how people spend their time, the type of support they get and whether they have positive experiences. We saw that staff were respectful to the people living in the home. Staff engaged with people to help them take part in activities. They offered them choices of what they wanted to do and people told us they were happy.

During the visit we case tracked three people living at the home. We found that care plans identified the needs of people and how these should be met. Plans included people's preferences and choices ensuring staff had good information about the person's lifestyle choices.

We also saw that people had access to healthcare professionals when they needed to ensure their health needs were met. We saw that staff supported people with their safety and comfort, and that a variety of stimulating activities were on offer for people to enjoy.

People were supported by suitably qualified and experienced staff. We saw staff spending time with people and the interactions we observed were positive.

We found that people's views and ideas were listened to and acted on to improve the service they were receiving.

As part of this review our pharmacist inspector visited the service on 25 july 2012. They found that improvements had been made since our last visit. In the majority of cases people were receiving their medicines as prescribed. The provider may wish to consider ensuring that there are systems in place to ensure that people are able to take their medicines when they are away from the service.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the staff and the standard of care. A relative told us 'they make sure people have their self respect, they ensure people are always well groomed, and I'm happy with that as it's important to me'. One relative said 'sometimes I feel there should be more staff.' A person living at the home told us 'you do have to wait for staff, sometimes at night people wait a long time'. In contrast other people told us staffing levels suited them and they had no complaints. Our observations during the visit showed people did not wait for staff to respond to their needs, and we saw staff were very attentive and took time to sit and talk with people.

People told us that they knew how to raise any concerns and that they had regular access to the manager to discuss their concerns. Not everyone had confidence in expressing concerns or that these would be resolved satisfactorily.

13 March 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook this review to follow up concerns identified in our previous reviews of this service. We looked to see what improvements had been made.

During the visit we case tracked some of the people using the service, including people with more complex needs. While they were not able to communicate with us fully we were able to establish that they were at ease in their surroundings. One person told us they were 'ok' and 'comfortable'.

We saw that the day's activities were well attended. We spoke with two people who were participating in making 'Easter bunny' soaps and flannels. They told us they had really enjoyed this and other activities on offer. One person said 'There is always something to do'.

We spoke to one visiting relative who told us that nursing care here had got better and that the 'carers are very good', 'just not enough carers'. They also told us that they 'find it frustrating that they don't do things you ask them to'.

A visiting physiotherapist said that they also felt that the staff had improved over the last year and that they find the home very caring.

28 July 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with ten people who use the service, two relatives and three staff. We also spoke with the general manager and representatives of the company and discussed our inspection findings and concerns with them.

Eight people told us they need minimal support from staff. They said they like living at the home because of the opportunity for communal living and being independent, but are reassured that staff are around if they need help. Two people told us they need staff to help them with most of their care. They said staff talk and involve them in discussions when they are undertaking care. People said they were happy with the service looking after their medicines and with how their medicines were being administered. However, when we looked at how the staff manage and administer medicines we identified concerns.

Some people were not able to speak with us, so we spent time observing how staff supported and interacted with them. We saw that people with a higher level of need were not being provided with the same level of opportunity for inclusion and involvement as people who were more independent.

19 January 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People told us they are satisfied with the care and support they receive. They said they feel safe and that if they had concerns they would feel able to raise them with either staff or the manager if it was necessary. People also told us they were happy with how their medication is managed by the home.