We carried out a review of the data available to us about 30 Sunnyfield on 6 July 2023. 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 30 Sunnyfield, you can give feedback on this service.
30 Sunnyfield is residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to up to 3 people. The service provides support to adults with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were 3 people using the service.
People’s experience of the service and what we found:
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessment and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Right Support;
People lived close to the local community and were able to easily access chosen activities or leisure and work. People were able to make choices about their day to day lives and how they wished to spend their time. People received personalised care which was built around their needs and wishes. This enabled people to gain independence and follow their own interests.
People were supported safely with their medicines.
Right Care:
People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. Risk assessments were carried out to promote people's safety and wellbeing. Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people received the care and support they needed. People were supported by adequate numbers of staff to meet their needs and support them in their chosen social activities.
Right Culture:
People were supported by a registered manager and staff team who treated everyone as an individual. Care provided was person centred which enabled people to follow their own routines and interests. People were happy at the home. They told us they felt well cared for and staff were kind and caring.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Outstanding(15 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted due to the time since the last inspection.
Follow Up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
The inspection took place on 12 June and 6 July 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. We returned announced for a second day as two of the people who used the service were away on holiday on the first day.
An experienced registered manager was 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.
At the last inspection in November 2014 we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall, with the ‘Is the service responsive?’ domain rated as ‘Outstanding.’
At this inspection we found the ‘Is the service responsive’ domain maintained its ‘Outstanding’ rating. In addition, we found further outstanding practice relating to leadership and management, and also rated the ‘Is the service well led’ domain ‘Outstanding’. This meant we were able to rate the service as ‘Outstanding’ overall. We found strong evidence the service actively sought the views of people using the service through innovative methods, fully involving them in governance, quality and knowledge sharing. We found an extremely dedicated and knowledgeable management team committed to ensuring people were able to live as fulfilling lives as possible. Staff showed consistent attention to detail which meant people received an outstanding level of care and support that was completely centred on each individual’s needs. This promoted people’s health and wellbeing and enhanced their quality of life.
People said the standard of care and support was excellent and they were extremely well cared for. People spoke very highly about staff, the support they received and opportunities available to them. People had developed exceptionally strong relationships with staff, felt able to confide in them and saw them as role models. Staff including management knew people very well and consistently helped them achieve their dreams and aspirations.
The service fostering strong links with the local community. This empowered people to be involved in events and activities which took place in the local area. People were enabled to undertake voluntary work and encouraged to develop friendships with others. Due to the resources available and dedication of the staff team, people had access to an exceptional range of activities. These helped people achieve their dreams and build self-confidence.
The service was exceptional at helping people develop their independence through a series of well thought out goals. People were fully involved in the planning and setting of these goals. People’s achievements were celebrated by the service to help build further confidence.
There was a highly person centred culture within the service which ensured that people were put at the heart of everything. Staff were passionate about providing highly flexible care and support based on people’s preferences and preferred daily regimes.
People were involved to the maximum extent possible in their care and support arrangements. People were knowledgable about their plans of care, future goals and activities. People were encouraged and supported to be actively involved in the running of the service. People chaired meetings, attended internal and external events and disseminated learning and knowledge from these to staff and the other people they lived with.
The service worked well in partnership with other organisations to help ensure they kept up-to-date with best practice in learning disabilities care. People were also fully involved in this process. The service had contributed to best practice through developing a bespoke training tool.
Care planning was comprehensive and was subject to regular review, fully involving people in this process. Staff had a positive approach to risk taking and enabled people to live as full lives as possible yet understood how to balance this with people’s safety.
There were enough staff deployed to ensure people received safe care and regular supervision and support. Staff were recruited safely to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff received a range of training and support relevant to their role. This was continually developed to keep up to date with changes in best practice.
The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were fully involved in decision making processes and capacity assessments were undertaken where staff had doubts over people’s understand.
Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and clear and detailed risk assessments put in place. Staff understood how to keep people safe and how to identify or raise any concerns.
The management team were highly visible and known to people who used the service. People and staff all said the service was well led and that morale was good within the service. A range of audits and checks were undertaken by management to help continuously improve the service. People had been involved in auditing, checking quality against Care Quality Commission standards. People’s feedback was regularly sought and used to help make improvements to the service.
This inspection took place on 3 November 2014 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in November 2013 there were no identified breaches of legal requirements in the areas we looked at.
30 Sunnyfield provides care for up to three people who have a learning disability. The home is a ‘stepping stone’ service for people who aspire to be more independent. There were three people living in the home when we visited. The home has three floors. There is a self-contained flat on the ground floor, a lounge and kitchen/dining area on the second floor, two bedrooms and a bathroom on the third floor. There is a garden to the rear of the property.
The home had a registered manager. 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. However, the registered manager had recently been promoted to Care Homes Manager and was going to be cancelling their registration with CQC and an acting manager was in charge of the home when we inspected.
People told us they felt safe at the home. Risks to people were managed well and gave people freedom, yet kept them safe. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood how to recognise and report any abuse. Staffing levels were sufficient which meant people were supported with their care and enabled to pursue interests of their choice in the community. People were supported to manage their own medicines safely.
No-one at the home was subject to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained and had a good understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Staff had developed positive, respectful relationships with people and were kind and caring in their approach. People were given choices in their daily routines and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were supported and empowered to be as independent as possible in all aspects of their lives. People’s nutritional needs were met and they received the health care support they required.
Staff knew people well and were trained, skilled and competent in meeting people’s needs. Staff were supported and supervised in their roles. People told us they were happy with the care they received, which we saw was tailored to meet their needs. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. Daily routines were centred around people’s individual preferences and requirements. People were supported to lead active and fulfilling lives pursuing activities of their choice in the home and out in the community.
Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and the focus was on continuous improvement. People and staff were actively involved in developing the service. There was strong leadership which promoted an open culture, which put people at the heart of the service.
We spoke with one of the people who used the service and they told us that they were happy living in the home. They felt that the staff were 'good at their job' and told us that staff 'support me and help out'.
The staff we spoke with told us that they were happy working there. They felt the training they received was 'very good and appropriate for the group of people we work with'
We looked at two care plans and we saw that they were comprehensive with an emphasis on the persons strengths. We saw that risk assessments had been carried out and risk management plans put in place to reduce risk. We saw that the risk and care plans were tailored to meet the need of the individual.
The staff we spoke with told us they had received training in safeguarding and were able to tell what they would do if they had any concerns about the way people were being treated.
We spoke with one of the people who used the service. They told us they felt safe living at the home and were able to tell us what they would do if they had any concerns.
We saw that there was a sign letting people who used the service how to complain if they were unhappy with any aspect of the service. The sign used pictograms to help people who had difficulty reading.
People told us they received very good support from all of the staff team. One person said; 'I like living here.' They also said they regularly met up with their key worker to review their care and to discuss if any changes were needed to the support they were receiving.
Staff spoken with demonstrated good attitudes towards positive risk taking. Because of this people who were using the service said they felt 'trusted.'
People who wanted to have a holiday chose where they wished to go and this was accommodated.
People were encouraged to manage their own medication although they needed support with this. One person said; 'I keep my own medication but need help with this, although I am hoping to be able to do it for myself one day.'
A person who was living in the home explained they had been involved in the recruitment of new staff in the past.
People spoke highly of the management and staff team and said they had a lot of involvement in decision making about how the home was run.