You are here

Archived: Sutton Lodge Residential Care Home Inadequate

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 December 2013
Date of Publication: 10 January 2014
Inspection Report published 10 January 2014 PDF

People should be cared for in safe and accessible surroundings that support their health and welfare (outcome 10)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are in safe, accessible surroundings that promote their wellbeing.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 10 December 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider and talked with commissioners of services.

Our judgement

People who used the service, staff and visitors were not protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

Reasons for our judgement

The registered person must ensure that the service users and others are protected against the risks associated with unsafe or unsuitable premises. We observed that parts of the “Vicarage building” had not been maintained to a safe and appropriate standard that promoted the health and well- being of people who used the service.

We were concerned with the suitability of the premises and the safety of people who may enter or use the premises, including vulnerable people who may visit the service. There was very little paint on any of the window frames in the Vicarage as this had peeled off to reveal the poor state of the wood. For example we found that the window frames were so badly decayed that they had large holes in them. In some cases they had been repeatedly filled with a substance, which had fallen out to reveal large gaps in the wood. The structure of the wood was weakened and there was risk of the whole frame collapsing in poor weather. (This was a particular concern given the close proximity of the sea which was very close by). In another room the window did not open and had a large sheet of plastic covering the window to assist with keeping the draft out. This meant that people were not being cared for in a safe environment and were not protected from the risks associated with poor maintenance of the premises.

We found evidence that the provider had not carried out repairs to other areas of the vicarage. The wallpaper in the lounge was peeling off to reveal the plaster. In a disused bedroom on the first floor the wall was very damp. There were multiple areas of damp in the vicarage and these areas felt cold to the touch, and smelt strongly of damp. This lack of maintenance put people’s health at risk because the building was so cold in the parts where the walls were damp. We found carpets with a frayed edge on the step as you came in the side door to the Vicarage and this was a trip hazard. In the lounge a “bath” was propped up against the wall along with the side panels. The manager told us this had been purchased to put into one of the bathrooms, but had not been installed yet. This presented a health and safety hazard for people who lived at the service as well as staff and visitors.

We observed that in the bathroom upstairs the bath panel was broken in three parts and had been stuck with tape. This had put people at risk of sustaining an injury. The letter box on the front door of the Vicarage was broken and did not close properly. An armchair in the Vicarage presented a health and safety risk, because the material was so badly ripped the inside of the furniture was exposed. This meant that the provider had not maintained a “comfortable” environment and the safety of people who used or entered the building were compromised.

We noted that the home was in need of redecoration as the paint was chipped, wallpaper was soiled in parts and was marked, and carpet was soiled and very worn in some of the bedrooms in the main building. The premises did not provide an environment which protected people’s rights to privacy, dignity, choice, autonomy or safety.