You are here

Sunrise of Southbourne Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

This care home is run by two companies: Sunrise UK Operations Limited and Sunrise Senior Living Limited. These two companies have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 11 September 2018

Sunrise of Southbourne is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Sunrise of Southbourne is registered for 104 people. There were 97 older people living in the home at the start of our inspection. People had a variety of care and support needs related to their physical and mental health. The home was divided into two main areas with people living with dementia accommodated on a separate floor called Reminiscence.

This unannounced inspection took place on 26 June 2018 with further visits to the home on 2 July, 4 July and 10 July 2018. We continued to receive evidence from the service until 19 July 2018. This was our first inspection of the service since the provider had changed.

There was a registered manager for the service; however, they had not been overseeing the home since the end of May 2018. They resigned their post during the time that we were inspecting. 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 previous registered manager, who knew the service well, had been appointed and had submitted their application to register with the CQC.

At this inspection we identified breaches of regulation with respect to: safe care and treatment, safeguarding adults, the deployment of staff, dignity and respect and the governance of the service including notifications. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Staff understood most of risks people faced. However, these risks were not always recorded and shared consistently and as a result care staff did not always act to reduce these risks.

People did not always receive their medicines as they were prescribed.

Staff encouraged people to make decisions about their day to day lives. However, care plans had not always been reviewed to reflect changes in behaviour. This meant that that staff did not always have guidance to follow to meet emerging needs.

People described the food as good.

Care plans also did not always reflect that care was being delivered within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This meant people were at risk of receiving care that was not in their best interests or was overly restrictive. The failure to apply the MCA appropriately had led to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards not being applied for a person we were told would be brought back if they left the home.

People were largely positive about the care they received from the home and told us the staff were kind. We observed that most care was delivered respectfully and with kindness but we also saw that some care practices did not promote dignity and that people were sometimes treated disrespectfully.

People told us they felt safe. Staff knew how to identify physical abuse and told us they would whistle blow if it was necessary. One person had not been protected appropriately because the safeguarding process had not been implemented effectively.

Quality assurance systems had not been effective in identifying the issues identified during our inspection and notifications that the provider was required to make to the CQC had not been made.

Care staff were consistent in their knowledge of people’s on-going care needs and spoke confidently about the support people needed to meet most of these needs.

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and had taken training that provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills. There was a plan in place to ensure staff received refresher training as deemed necessary by the provider and enhance

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 11 September 2018

The service was not always safe. People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed and risks were not managed, monitored and communicated effectively.

Safeguarding practices were not always followed effectively.

People felt safe and there were enough staff to meet their needs although they had not always been deployed safely.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 September 2018

The service was not always effective. Staff did not all have a clear understanding of the MCA.

People told us they had access to healthcare when they needed it.

People’s needs had been assessed and they were cared for by staff who mostly understood these needs.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 September 2018

The service was mostly caring but people were sometimes treated in ways that did not promote their dignity.

Staff developed relationships with people and took the time to get to know them individually.

People and their relatives were listened to and felt involved in making decisions about their day to day care.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 September 2018

The service was not always responsive. Care reviews did not always reflect changes in people’s experiences.

People, and relatives, were confident they were listened to and knew how to complain if they felt it necessary. People enjoyed a range of activities this was being developed for the people living with dementia.

People were cared for with compassion at the end of their lives.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 September 2018

The service had been through a period of unsettled leadership. A manager had been reinstated.

People, relatives and staff had confidence in the management and spoke highly of the support they received. There were systems in place to monitor and improve quality including seeking the views of people and relatives. These had not been effective in highlighting the concerns identified during our inspection.