You are here

Sainthill House Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Review carried out on 7 October 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sainthill House Care Home on 7 October 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Sainthill House Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 30 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Sainthill House is registered to provide accommodation for 19 people who require accommodation and personal care. The service provides care and support for up to 14 older people who may have physical and/or mental health needs. The service includes Sainthill Cottage, attached to Sainthill House, which provides care and accommodation for up to five younger people who have a learning disability. On the day of our visit fifteen people lived in the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were not all able to fully verbalise their views therefore they were not able to tell us verbally about their experience of living there. Therefore, we observed the interactions between people and the staff supporting them.

The management team and staff knew people well and understood their likes and preferences and health needs. Staff were caring and spent time chatting with people as they moved around the service. Relatives told us they were welcome at any time and any concerns were listened and responded to.

People and staff told us the service was well managed. People said they were treated with kindness and compassion and felt respected. Staff showed a true fondness for the people they cared for and there was a warm, friendly and welcoming atmosphere. People’s wellbeing was promoted.

Staff were recruited safely in sufficient numbers to ensure people’s needs were met. There was time for social interaction and activity with staff.

The environment was safe and people had access to equipment where needed. Staff had received appropriate training and support to enable them to carry out their role safely, including the management of medicines.

There were positive working relationships with external professionals and a passion for continuous learning and improvement.

People were kept safe and protected from avoidable harm and abuse, and people had their medicines safely managed. New processes had been put into place to ensure a more robust oversight. People lived in an environment which was fully assessed for safety.

People received personalised care and support, and had their human rights protected. Staff were competent in their roles and were well supported. Quality monitoring systems had been further developed.

Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published 13 October 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. At this inspection, the service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Inspection carried out on 14 September 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 14 and 16 September 2016 and was unannounced. The previous inspection of the home was carried out on 23 and 26 October 2015 where we found breaches of regulations. These related to safe care and treatment, safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment, and good governance. The service was rated as ‘requires improvement’ and the provider was required to submit an action plan explaining what they were doing to meet the legal requirement to improve the service.

We carried out this inspection in September 2016 to check whether these improvements had been made. Sainthill House is registered to provide accommodation for 19 people who require accommodation and personal care. The service provides care and support for up to 14 older people who may have physical and/or mental health needs. The service includes Sainthill Cottage, attached to Sainthill House, which provides care and accommodation for up to five younger people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were five people in the cottage and 14 people in the main house, with three people coming in for day care.

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.

The registered manager had kept us informed about progress towards achieving the provider’s action plan, and we found significant improvements in all aspects of the service since the last inspection. There had been input from the local authority Quality Assurance and Improvement Team (known as QAIT). QAIT had evaluated the quality of the support provided, highlighting what was going well and making recommendations where improvements were needed. The provider had further developed the quality assurance system, and used the findings to create a comprehensive service improvement plan. At the time of this inspection the majority of the improvements had been made. People were very positive about the service. One person told us, “It’s extraordinary…There is a family mentality. The staff have a good relationship with each other and I’ve got to know them all very well. It’s an ideal placement”. A member of staff said, “I’m very proud of what we have done at Sainthill”.

At the last inspection in October 2015 we found staff did not understand their role in relation to infection control and hygiene, which placed people at risk. At this inspection we found improvements had been made. Staff had received training, PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) were readily available and accessible for staff, cleaning hours had been increased and weekly and monthly housekeeping and infection control audits were carried out.

At the last inspection we saw medicines administration records (MAR) for the application of creams and topical medication were not always being signed by staff. At this inspection we found systems were now in place to ensure people received all of their medicines safely. MAR charts had been completed correctly, care plans contained clear guidance for staff and mandatory training was in place about topical medication administration. Regular medication audits ensured this improvement was maintained.

At the last inspection in October 2015 we found people’s rights were not always protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff did not have an understanding of the MCA or how the principles applied to their practice. People’s capacity to make particular decisions had not always been assessed and documented, or a best interest process followed. In addition, people had not been referred for assessment under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were potentially being deprived of their liberty to rec

Inspection carried out on 23 and 26 October 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 23 and 26 October 2015 and was unannounced.

Sainthill House is registered to provide accommodation for 17 people who require nursing or personal care. The service provides care and support for up to 12 older people who may have physical and/or mental health needs at Sainthill House. The service also comprises Sainthill Cottage, attached to Sainthill House, which provides care and accommodation for up to five younger people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were five people in the cottage and 13 people in the main house, including two people attending day care.

There was a new manager in post. A registered manager application had been submitted to the Care Quality Commission but the registration process was still in progress. 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. Everyone was positive about the new manager, and felt they were approachable, caring, and committed to the service and the well-being of people there. Staff commented on the improvements he had made at the service and told us,” “It’s amazing the things that have changed for the better”.

People were not always safe because the service was not consistently following safe practice around recording when giving people their prescribed creams, and staff did not always understand their role and responsibilities in relation to infection control.

The service was not fully meeting its requirements in relation to protecting people’s human rights, where people lacked the mental capacity to make certain decisions about their care and welfare.

The service did not notify the Care Quality Commission of all significant events which had occurred, in line with their legal responsibilities. This meant that the Commission was unable to monitor whether the service had responded to these incidents appropriately.

People received care and support in line with their individual care plans; however some people told us they had not been involved in their development. We have made a recommendation about routinely and meaningfully involving people in decisions about their care and ensuring their details are recorded accurately.

We saw that staff promoted people’s independence and treated people with dignity and respect. Written feedback from one person said,” I cannot speak more highly of the care and attention I am receiving at Sainthill House; I certainly recommend it to everyone”. A relative told us, “The staff couldn’t look after [the person] any better. This is a home from home”.

People’s relatives said they were made welcome and encouraged to visit the home as often as they wished. They said the service was good at keeping them informed and involving them in decisions about their relatives care.

Staff were well supported by the provider and manager. They were undertaking a new comprehensive training programme to help them meet people’s mental and physical health needs.

There were enough staff deployed to meet the diverse needs of people at the service and to care for them safely. People were engaged in a variety of activities within the home and in the community and there were sufficient numbers of staff to support people to go out regularly if they wanted to. This ensured people experienced a good quality of life.

The provider actively sought the views of people, their relatives and staff through staff and residents meetings and an ‘on line’ questionnaire to continuously improve the service.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We made a recommendation about the service routinely and meaningfully involving people and their advocates in developing care plans, and ensuring their details are recorded accurately.

Inspection carried out on 3, 7 July 2014

During a routine inspection

The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions: is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

There were 11 people living in Sainthill House and five people living at Sainthill Cottage at the time of this inspection. We met with everyone living at the home. We spoke with eight people in some depth to hear about their experience of living there. We also looked at the care records of five people and spoke with two relatives, six health and social care professionals and five members of staff including the registered manager.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

All of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Sainthill. Comments included, �Staff are kind and considerate. I am never rushed. They treat me very well here�; �Staff are never rough with me�; and �If I had any concerns I would be able to speak with the manager�.

Relatives and health professionals spoke positively about the care and support provided. One professional told us, �I have been particularly impressed by the manager. She has good strategies in place to manage care safely�. A relative said, �I have a great deal of confidence in the manager and staff. My relative�s care is second to none�.

We found that risks had been assessed to identify any potential risk and the actions required to manage the risk. This meant people were not put at unnecessary risk but had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and daily lives. For example one person enjoyed horse riding. The risk assessment and care plan supported this activity.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, relevant policies and procedures were in place. Appropriate staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. Both Sainthill House and the Cottage were clean and odour free throughout and people told us it was always like this.

People were protected against risks associated with medicine management because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Systems were in place to make sure the manager and provider learnt from events such as accidents and incidents. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Equipment was maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective because people�s health and well-being was promoted. Care plans provided instructions to staff about the care each person wanted and needed. We saw evidence of multi-professional visits and appointments, for example GP, speech and language therapist, and community nurses.

External professionals told us the home worked well with them to ensure people�s health was promoted and their needs were met. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. We saw that specialist equipment such as chairs and mattresses were provided where needed. People told us their current needs were being well met by the service.

People's preferences and interests had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes. We found improvement in the frequency and the variety of activities offered since the last inspection, which meant people had increased opportunities for meaningful occupation.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. We checked staff files and found the provider had maintained a satisfactory recruitment process, which protected people using the service from unsuitable staff.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were supported by kind, caring and attentive staff. The staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person commented, �Some of the staff are excellent. All are polite and friendly�. Another person told us, �All of the staff are lovely. They understand me��

Relatives spoke very positively about the care and support given to their family members. One told us, �The home has a lovely homely feel to it. �they have been wonderful with X and the family�. Another relative told us, �The staff are very caring. Sainthill has very high standards in my opinion�.

During our visit, we observed people were provided with the care and support they needed in a timely way. Staff were responsive to people�s requests and we saw staff had a friendly and respectful approach and treated people in a kind manner. We found from speaking with staff they knew people well and were aware of their different care needs and individual preferences.

Is the service responsive?

Visiting health and social care professionals told us the service was responsive to people�s changing needs. Comments from external professionals included, �We are alerted to any changes in people�s health needs appropriately�; �Communication is excellent. They fully embrace our recommendations and suggestions�; and �The manager bends over backwards to meet people�s needs. She is creative and inclusive in her approach�.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. No complaints had been received since our last inspection. However, people said they would be happy to speak to staff or the manager and that they were confident any concerns would be listen to and acted on. People can therefore be assured that complaints are investigated and action is taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

Since the last inspection the manager has registered with CQC. People using the service, relatives, and health and social care professionals spoke highly of the registered manager and the positive impact she had had on the service.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. Professionals spoken with expressed their confidence in the manager and staff.

The service had an established quality assurance process in place to promote the continual improvement of the service. People said they had taken part in 'residents meetings' where issues relating to the running of the home were discussed, these included food and activity choices. Annual satisfaction surveys were used to gain people�s views and suggestions. There was evidence that people's opinions had been acted upon as improvements had been made in respect of the food available, the activities provided and the laundry service.

Inspection carried out on 8, 14 November 2013

During a routine inspection

Two inspectors visited the home on 8 November 2013. There were 14 people living at the service; nine people were accommodated at Sainthill House and five adults with a learning disability were living at Sainthill Cottage. An inspector also visited the home on 14 November 2013.

During this inspection we met with or saw the majority of people using the service. We spoke with six people using the service in some depth to hear their experiences of living at the home. We also spoke with seven members of staff including care staff, the unregistered manager and the company representative. During the visit we met and spoke with three relatives and two health professionals (GP and community nurse specialist). As part of this inspection we contacted a number of health and social care professionals, including a community psychiatric nurse, professional advisor, occupational therapist, four care managers and an environmental health officer.

Overall people living at the home were satisfied with the care and support they received. Their comments included, �I am very happy here. I have no worries�, �I love the staff. They are all very good to me�, �The staff treat me well� and �The care is wonderful here. Five stars all around!� People living in the home and their relatives told us the home was a safe place to be.

We spoke with three relatives and they confirmed that they were satisfied with the care provided. One told us, �X always looks comfortable and well kept�. Another relative said �We have no concerns. X seems well cared for. Staff are friendly and kind�.

The feedback from visiting professionals was positive overall. They told us they were contacted appropriately and that the service implemented their recommendations. Comments included, �Patients appear happy�, �There is good monitoring of people�s mental health�, �The manager and staff are doing a great job� and �They have gone out of their way to settle X�. All of the professionals we spoke with spoke highly of the unregistered manager.

During the inspection we spent time with people in the communal areas of the home and with people individually in their rooms. We found that care and support was offered appropriately to people. People told us and records showed that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the staff acted in accordance with their wishes.

People�s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

Inspection carried out on 25 April 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our last inspection at Sainthill House Care Home on 31 January 2013 and 12 February 2013 we found that the provider had failed to meet compliance actions in relation to staff recruitment and records. As a result CQC took enforcement action and warning notices were issued in relation to staff recruitment and records.

The focus of this inspection was to review the action taken by the provider to meet the warning notices. We found improvements had been made. Work was on-going to ensure records were accurate to protect people against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment. A review had been undertaken in relation to staff recruitment processes and records. We found the provider was compliant with these outcomes.

During this inspection we met with or saw a number of people. People living at the home told us that they were happy with the care provided to them.

Inspection carried out on 31 January and 12 February 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

An inspection in September 2012 found that the provider was failing to meet three of the essential standards of quality and safety. We issued compliance actions to ensure that improvements were made. The focus of this inspection was to review the action taken to meet the compliance actions. We also took this opportunity to look at concerns raised with us relating to the availability of equipment, the cleanliness of the home and fire safety concerns.

There were 14 people living at Sainthill House and Cottage and we met or spoke with 10 of them. People told us about the management and staff changes over the past months, which some had found disruptive. One person told us, �It has been chaotic�, and another person said �There have been lots of changes�.

We received mixed comments about the quality of the food. People told us the home was always clean and free from offensive odours. We found that the home had suitable equipment. The fire service had visited the home and found it to be broadly compliant. They had made recommendations were failures were found.

We found that the provider was not meeting all of the essential standards and action was needed. Care and treatment was not always planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. An effective recruitment process was not in place. People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.

Inspection carried out on 21 September 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of this unannounced inspection there were 14 people living at Sainthill Care Home; nine older people were residing in the Sainthill House and five younger adults with a learning disability were living at Sainthill Cottage.

We spoke with six people living at the service to hear their views and experiences. Some people had limited verbal abilities but most spoken with were able to indicate whether they were happy or not. People told us that they were happy living at Sainthill, that their needs and preferences were met and that the staff were supportive. Comments included, �They listen to me�whatever I suggest they work to that as a rule�, �I have enjoyed my stay here�staff are considerate and helpful��, �I get on with everyone�, and �I am happy here�.

People told us that they liked the food provided and that the home was usually clean and fresh. We were told that routines were flexible and that people could make choices and decisions about their care and how they spent their day. The people we spoke with said that they felt safe living at the home and that they knew who to speak with if they were unhappy about something.

We also spoke with three health and social care professionals as well as seven staff working at the service, including managers, care staff and catering staff. Visiting professionals told us that their overall impression of the service was good. One health professional told us, �Staff are managing well�they are able to make any changes to help people�� Another professional commented, �The staff are very caring and understand people�s needs�� A third professional said, �People seem happy and well cared for��

There had been a number of changes to the management of the home, which had resulted in an unsettled period for people living at Sainthill and for the staff. One person living at the home said, �Things were working like clock work but then lots of changes. Things are settling now�. Another person told us, �There have been a few changes, I can�t keep up�� Staff also spoke about the changes and the impact on them saying that some staff had been �disgruntled� and left, and that there had been an �uneasy� atmosphere for a while. We were told that things had improved with the appointment of a new manager; staff said they felt well supported in their role and that the team was working well together.

During this inspection we found areas of concern relating to care records, the storage of food and staff recruitment.

Inspection carried out on 29 November 2011

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced inspection on 29 November 2011. We spoke with five people that live at Sainthill and some of their relatives. Overall they told us that they were very happy with the care and support they receive and the staff are polite and easy to communicate with. Comments included:

�Staff are marvellous, do a wonderful job.�

�Staff do everything very willingly. Treat me with respect.�

�Staff are nice and they support me.�

�I feel really supported and involved in my care.�

�I am saying it from the heart, I am respected here and there is always help here if I need it.�

People commented that they were fully involved and supported to make decisions about their care. For example, plans of care are reviewed with people living at Sainthill involved and their needs and wishes are taken into account. People said that they are encouraged to maintain their independence and feel fully involved in their care.

We were told that staff supported people appropriately with daily living tasks, including personal care and meeting nutritional needs. During our visit, we observed staff supportively assisting people to meet their personal needs, such as transferring from one area of the home to another with the use of a walking frame. We also saw a staff member assisting a person to eat their meal, by placing food on the fork and then giving the fork to the person for them to eat. The staff member was not hurried, which allowed the time for the person to eat their meal at a pace which suited them.

People we saw and spoke with confirmed that they felt safe and supported by staff at Sainthill and had no concerns of their ability to respond to safeguarding concerns. They felt that their human rights were upheld and respected by staff.

People we spoke with said that staff were supportive and helpful. Staff knew how to respond to specific health and social care needs and were observed to be competent with such. Staff were able to speak confidently about the care practices they delivered and understood how they contribute to people�s health and well-being.