- Care home
Sutton Grange
This care home is run by two companies: Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited and Scarborough Hall Limited. These two companies have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home.
Assessment report published 6 February 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 15 October to 2 December 2025. Sutton Grange is a care home, providing accommodation for people who require nursing or personal care, and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The home can provide support for up to 70 older people or younger adults, including those living with dementia, or a physical disability. At the time of -this assessment, 57 people were living at the home.
An unannounced inspection took place to review the quality of care, following information we received about staffing levels, medicines management systems and moving and handling practices. At the last inspection, the home was rated good. At this inspection we found standards had declined and the home was now in breach of legal regulations for dignity, safe care and treatment, and good governance.
Risks to people were not always recorded or managed safely, and strategies to support people communicating a need, emotion or distress were not consistently followed. The provider used a dependency tool to calculate staffing levels, but feedback and observations evidenced staff deployment did not ensure consistently safe, good quality care. Medicines were not always managed safely and people did not always receive their medicines as prescribed.
Staff no longer ensured information in care plans was robust, and records indicated people did not always have the required support to prevent malnutrition or dehydration. Recognised tools were used to record observations when staff noted signs of ill health, but these were not consistently used to monitor or prevent deterioration. Care plans lacked information about people’s oral hygiene needs and records evidenced prolonged periods where some people went without adequate support.
The provider did not ensure staff deployment always afforded compassionate care, which meant people’s dignity was impacted. Care was task led at times. Staff could not always respond to requests for care and support in a timely manner.
Governance and oversight systems had not been effective in identifying concerns found during our inspection, or ensuring these had been rectified in a timely manner.
However, there were effective systems to manage and learn from safety events and information was shared with the appropriate agencies. Information was available to support people to prepare for moves between services . Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place as required, and renewal dates of authorisations were monitored. The environment was found to be safe, secure and hygienic. Staff were recruited safely, and received the appropriate training and support.
The provider ensured information about people’s needs were shared with staff, and worked closely with healthcare partners where required. Care plans were outcome focused and managers regularly reviewed people’s outcomes. Staff sought consent in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and promoted people’s choice and control.
Staff had a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported, and continuity of care was prioritised. People received information in a way they could understand, and systems were in place to enable people and relatives to give feedback. The home was adapted to meet the needs of those with protected characteristics. People were supported to make advanced decisions about end of life care.
Staff were made aware of the home’s visions and values, and managers led by example. Staff told us they felt they were treated fairly and felt confident speaking up. The home worked in partnership with other homes and services, collaborating to improve people’s experience. There was adequate investment to enable staff to develop their own skills and make improvements to the environment.
Following feedback, managers took action to address some of our concerns around care plans, record keeping and medicines management. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives gave a lot of feedback about the low staffing levels at the home, and the impact this had on people and their experience. Comments included, “Sometimes they’re short staffed and I have to wait. I had a problem yesterday, I needed the toilet, and they told me I had to wait till after tea. It happens pretty regular, but I have to wait my turn,” “Staff are working on 2 units, there’s no one (for relatives) to talk to,” “There’s not enough staff really, the staff are constantly rushing,” and “[Staff] don’t have time to talk to us.”
We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We observed several occasions people lacked support and meaningful engagement.
However, people and relatives spoke positively about the staff members and other aspects of living at Sutton Grange. A person living at the home told us, “I’ve never felt anything but respected and cared for. Staff are all very kind.” Another added, “It’s really nice here, [staff] are just like my own family.”
People and relatives gave examples of how the service helped people to stay safe by managing risks to their health and mobility. One person explained how a sensor mat had been put in place because they were prone to falls. Another told us, “My balance is poor, but my walker helps.”
People told us they enjoyed the meals at the home and a range of snacks, fruit and hot drinks were offered. One person said, “The meals are lovely. I’ve just had a mid-week roast of turkey, and it was delicious.” We observed mealtimes were relaxed and sociable, and people had access to the right aids and adaptations to promote their independence.
We observed a couple of very well attended group activities during our inspection including a dementia choir and quiz. Friends and relatives were seen to attend alongside their loved ones.
People and relatives confirmed they were involved in planning care and making shared decisions. A person living at the home explained how they had been involved in discussions about their care following an incident. A relative told us, “I am involved in care planning and updated with any changes.”
Whilst people we spoke with expressed they were generally happy with their care, our inspection found elements of quality and safety did not meet the expected standards.