Archived: Sunrise Operations Chorleywood Limited

The service provides care and nursing support to people with a variety of needs including those associated with living with dementia. The home is divided into two units. The 'Assisted Living' unit located on the ground and first floor of the home can accommodate up to 69 people who are elderly and frail. The 'Reminiscence' unit is located on the second floor of the home and can accommodate up to 31 people with higher care needs and dementia. On the day of our inspection, there were 93 people being supported by the service. The home is a purpose built care home with private grounds within a gated environment. The home is decorated to an extremely high standard which gives the home the feel of a five star hotel. There is a concierge service available, Wifi and a Bistro service. People within the home were provided with small apartments rather than rooms. These consisted of a living room/ kitchenette, walking shower room and two bedrooms. People could choose to share an apartment with another person using the service or have them for sole use.

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.

There was not always enough staff to support people within the home.

The provider did not promote an inclusive culture in the home and decisions were sometimes made without proper consultation with people or their relatives.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Potential risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had been reduced because there were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how to support people safely. There were systems in place to safeguard people from avoidable harm and staff had been trained in safeguarding procedures. The provider had effective recruitment processes in place.

Staff had regular supervision and they had been trained to meet people’s individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care and support being provided. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the related Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being met.

People were supported by staff who were kind, caring, friendly and respectful. They were supported to make choices about how they lived their lives and how they wanted to be supported. People had enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing. They were supported to access other health services when required.

People’s needs had been assessed and they had care plans that took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. Where possible, people and their relatives had been involved in reviewing people’s care plans. People had been provided with a variety of activities facilitated by the activities coordinator.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, external professionals and staff, and they acted on the comments received to continually improve the quality of the service.

The provider’s quality monitoring processes had been used to drive continuous improvements but was not always effective in monitoring people’s expectations of the service. The manager provided stable leadership and effective support to staff, Staff were motivated to do their best to provide good care to people who used the service and to work in collaboration with people’s relatives.

We found the provider was in breach of a regulation of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We noted that there were plenty of food and drinks available and people were supported to eat and drink when required. The provider had undertaken various quality monitoring processes and had put actions in place to deal with any concerns/comments that had been raised.

People who lived at Sunrise Chorleywood and the relatives we had contact with, were positive about the service being provided. They were complimentary about the range of social activities that were provided and said, 'It's very good here', 'It's all very nice', "If I want something changed, no sooner have I said it then it's put right." People were positive about the staff they had contact with. Two people told us that the dementia care service had made a difference to the quality of their relatives' lives. They confirmed that staff kept them informed of any changes and involved in decisions. One relative said the service had given them 'peace of mind'.

We identified that staff responded appropriately to adult protection concerns brought to their attention.

We found that the provider had robust recruitment procedures in place that ensured suitable staff were employed and received the supervision and training they needed.

The provider had quality monitoring systems in place that took account of the views of people who used the service and ensured their safety and welfare.