You are here

This care home is run by two companies: Sunrise UK Operations Limited and Sunrise Senior Living Limited. These two companies have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

This inspection took place on 9 May 2018 and was unannounced.

Sunrise of Banstead is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The home can accommodate a maximum of 97 people in two 'neighbourhoods.' The reminiscence neighbourhood provides care to people living with dementia and the assisted living neighbourhood supports older people who may have mobility and health needs. There were 83 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Although staff were caring, one person was subject to restrictions which affected their experience of care and their life at the home. Although it affected only one person, this restriction was significant and breached the person’s human rights.

Overall people were safe although we identified an area for improvement in the use of equipment. We made a recommendation about this.

Overall people’s medicines were managed safely although we identified an area for improvement in the use of medicines prescribed ‘As required’ (PRN). We made a recommendation about this.

People felt safe and secure at the home. There were enough staff on each shift to meet people’s needs. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and were aware of their responsibilities should they suspect abuse was taking place. People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures.

There were plans in place to ensure people would continue to receive their care in the event of an emergency. Health and safety checks were carried out regularly to keep the premises safe for use. The home was clean and hygienic and staff maintained appropriate standards of infection control.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home and kept under review. People’s care was provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). When assessing people’s capacity to make decisions, staff had followed an appropriate process to ensure their rights under the MCA were protected. Staff understood that any restrictions should only be imposed upon people where authorised to keep them safe.

Staff had access to the induction, training and support they needed to do their jobs. Staff attended all elements of mandatory training during their induction and refresher training at regular intervals. Staff had access to further training relevant to the needs of the people they cared for. All staff attended regular one-to-one supervision, which gave them the opportunity to discuss any further training they needed, and an annual appraisal.

People enjoyed the food provided and were involved in developing the menu. People’s feedback about meals and mealtimes was encouraged and their suggestions were implemented. People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and were known by care and catering staff. Staff supported people to maintain adequate nutrition and hydration.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored effectively and people were supported to obtain treatment if they needed it. Referrals were made to healthcare professionals if staff identified concerns about people’s health or well-being. Any guidance about people’s care issued by healthcare professionals was implemented and recorded in people’s care plans.

People were supported by caring staff. People told us they had developed positive relationships with staff and enjoyed their company. They said the atmosphere in the home was friendly and welcoming. Staff supported people to maintain relationships with the

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was safe.

Overall people were safe although we recommend that the provider review how people who use wheelchairs are supported.

Overall people�s medicines were managed safely although we recommend that the provider review the use of PRN medicines.

There were enough staff available to meet people�s needs.

Staff understood safeguarding procedures and were aware of their responsibilities should they suspect abuse was taking place.

People were protected by the provider�s recruitment procedures.

There were plans in place to ensure that people�s care would not be interrupted in the event of an emergency.

Staff maintained appropriate standards of infection control.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was effective.

People�s care was provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were supported by staff who had the support, supervision and training they needed to provide their care.

People enjoyed the food provided and were involved in developing the menu. People�s nutritional needs had been assessed and were known by staff.

People�s needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of the premises.

People�s healthcare needs were monitored effectively and people were supported to obtain treatment if they needed it.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 23 August 2018

Although staff were kind, the service was not always caring.

People were not always able to express themselves as they wished, which breached their human rights.

People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them.

Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity.

People�s friends and families were made welcome when they visited.

Staff supported people in a way that promoted their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was responsive to people�s needs.

Care plans were person-centred and were regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to reflect people�s needs.

People had opportunities to take part in activities and events and maintain links with the local community.

Complaints were managed appropriately and used as opportunities for improvement.

There were procedures in place to ensure people�s preferences about end of life care were known.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 August 2018

The service was well-led.

Senior managers were approachable and visible around the home.

People and their relatives were encouraged to give their views and these were listened to.

Staff were well supported by their managers and the senior management team.

Communication amongst staff was effective.

There was an open culture in which staff could speak up or raise concerns.

The provider had established systems of quality monitoring and improvement.