You are here

Archived: Sunshine Care - Central Offices Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 October 2016

Sunshine Care provides a ‘live in’ personal care and support service to people in the South West of England. At the time of our inspection the team of fifty seven care staff was providing support to approximately thirty four people with a range of personal, healthcare and domestic services.

The service is required to have a registered manager and at the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

People told us they felt safe and were well cared for by Sunshine Care. Their comments included; “I feel safe with them,” and “Oh yes the carers are like family.” Family members were generally positive about the support their relatives received. They said, “They know the job backwards. It’s been excellent.” Another commented, “We have monthly carers working two weeks and then a replacement. Not a problem with staffing so far.”

People told us that due to the agency changing to live in care meant there was no chance of missed visits or staff being late. One person said, “It’s the best thing the agency did.” The operational manager told us this approach was continuing to be developed but that it was working well and could be managed more effectively than daily calls.

A few people told us communication had been difficult on occasions due to some staff not having English as their first language. One person said this had recently improved. Another person said they had informed the agency of their concerns. The agency was asked about this and said all staff had to have an acceptable level of English but agreed to look into the concern.

The registered manager was confident about the action to take if they had any safeguarding concerns and had liaised with the safeguarding teams as appropriate. Risk assessments clearly identified any risk and gave staff guidance on how to minimise the risk. They were designed to keep people and staff safe while allowing people to develop and maintain their independence. Staff told us they had attended both classroom training and e-learning (computer based training) to learn what action to take should staff witness or suspect abusive practice.

The recruitment process was safe and ensured all new staff had undergone suitable checks to ensure they were safe to work with people who may be vulnerable. The service was actively recruiting more staff to improve the flexibility in staffing levels.

Staff received a four day classroom induction based on familiarisation of the organisations policies and procedures, health and safety and practical learning including moving and handling, use of equipment and first aid. A staff member told us they had completed the care certificate induction standards so they felt competent in delivering care and support. They said, “They (managers) are good at making sure we are up to date with the training.”

People said staff were well trained and understood how to meet their specific care needs. Training records showed staff had been provided with all the necessary training which had been refreshed regularly. A staff member told us, “I have the training I need to carry out my role.”

Staff received regular supervisions and annual performance appraisals. In addition ‘spot checks’ by managers were used regularly to confirm each member of staff was providing appropriate standards of care and support.

Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people needed to be supported. The service had risk assessment procedures in place. This was held at the person’s own home as well as a copy being available at head office so this could be monitored.

Suitable medicine procedures were

Inspection areas



Updated 13 October 2016

The service was safe. Risk assessments were undertaken and written plans were in place to manage these risks.

Staff understood how people should be safeguarded and were confident about reporting any concerns.

Recruitment procedures ensured staff were safe to work with people who may be vulnerable.



Updated 13 October 2016

The service was effective. People received support from a consistent staff team who understood their needs.

Staff had access to regular training events and there were procedures in place for the induction training of new members of staff.

People�s choices were respected and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.



Updated 13 October 2016

The service was caring. Staff were kind, compassionate and understood people�s individual care needs.

People and their families were involved in their care and were asked about their preferences and choices. Staff respected people�s wishes and provided care and support in line with those wishes.

Staff supported and encouraged people to maintain their independence.



Updated 13 October 2016

The service was responsive. People�s care plans were detailed, personalised and provided staff with clear guidance on how to meet individual needs.

Staff were respectful of people�s rights and privacy.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to complain and would be happy to speak with managers if they had any concerns.



Updated 13 October 2016

The service was well led. Staff were supported by their manager. There was open communication within the staff team and staff felt comfortable discussing any concerns with their manager.

Systems were in place to monitor how the service operated.

People told us they felt listened to and the service responded to their views.