You are here

Sutton Lodge Residential Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Sutton Lodge Residential Care Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 21 April 2018

We inspected the service on 22 December 2017. The inspection was unannounced. Sutton Lodge Residential Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Sutton Lodge Residential Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for 24 adults of all ages. The service can also provide care for people who have physical adaptive needs. There were 14 people living in the service at the time of our inspection visit. Some of the people lived with dementia and had special communication needs.

The service was run by a company who was the registered provider. 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. In this report when we speak about both the company and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.

This is the fourth consecutive time the service has been rated as 'Requires Improvement'.

At the last inspection on 13 October 2016 although there were no breaches of regulations we found shortfalls in the arrangements that had been made to manage the service so that people consistently received safe and responsive care. At the present inspection we found two breaches of regulations. This was because the registered persons had failed to assess risks to people’s health and safety and had not done all that is practical to keep people safe. In addition, the registered persons had failed to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service in the carrying on of the regulated activity. This was because people had not been fully involved in the development of the service and quality checks had had not always resulted in shortfalls quickly being quickly put right. In addition, the registered persons had not made robust arrangements to ensure that the service complied fully with a number of regulatory requirements. You can see what action we have told the registered persons to take at the end of the full version of this report.

Our other findings are as follows. We found that improvements were needed to ensure that people were fully safeguarded from the risk of financial mistreatment. In addition, lessons had not always been quickly learned when things had gone wrong. Furthermore, background checks on new care staff had not always been completed in the right way. However, medicines were managed correctly and sufficient care staff had been deployed.

Suitable arrangements had not always been made to enable people to receive care that fully promoted effective outcomes. This included national guidelines not always being followed to ensure that care was always provided in a lawful way and was the least restrictive possible. Furthermore, some parts of the accommodation were not designed, adapted and decorated to meet people’s needs and expectations. Although in practice care staff knew how to provide people with most of the practical assistance they needed, some of them had not received all of the training that the registered persons considered to be necessary. In addition, some of the arrangements used to ensure that people had enough hydration and nutrition to maintain a balanced diet were not robust. However, suitable provision had been made to help people receive a coordinated care when they moved between different services and people had been supported to receive on-going healthcare assistance.

Care staff had not always been given all of the resources they needed to provide people with a service that consistently pro

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 21 April 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

People were not fully protected by the prevention and control of infection.

People had not always been provided with care that reduced avoidable risks to their health and safety and lessons had not always been learned when things had gone wrong.

Suitable arrangements had not been made to fully safeguard people from the risk of financial mistreatment.

Background checks had not always been completed in the right way before new care staff were appointed.

Medicines were managed safely.

Suitable arrangements had been made to ensure that sufficient numbers of suitable staff were deployed in the service.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 21 April 2018

The service was not consistently effective.

Suitable arrangements had not always been made to ensure that care was always provided in a lawful way and was the least restrictive possible.

Some parts of the accommodation were not designed, adapted and decorated to meet people’s needs and expectations.

People were not consistently helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.

Care staff had not received all of the training the registered persons considered to be necessary.

There were suitable arrangements to enable people to receive coordinated care when they used different services.

People had been supported to receive on-going healthcare support.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 21 April 2018

The service was not consistently caring.

Care staff had not been given all of the guidance and resources they needed to always provide people with care that promoted their dignity.

People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible.

People's privacy and independence were respected and promoted.

Confidential information was kept private.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 21 April 2018

The service was not consistently responsive.

People had not always received personalised care that was responsive to their needs including their need to have information presented to them in an accessible way.

People had not been offered sufficient opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests and to take part in a range of social activities.

Equality and diversity were not fully promoted.

People’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to in order to improve the quality of care.

Suitable provision had been made to support people at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 21 April 2018

The service was not consistently well led.

Suitable arrangements had not been made to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

The registered persons had not taken all of the steps that were necessary to ensure that the service fully complied with regulatory requirements.

There was a registered manager who was promoting an open culture in the service.

Care staff had been helped to understand their responsibilities to develop good team work and to speak out if they had any concerns.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to promote the delivery of joined-up care.