You are here

Archived: Sutton Hall and Lodge Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 2 August 2018

We inspected on 21 and 22 June 2018. The inspection was unannounced on the first day and we told the provider we would be visiting on the second day.

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

Up to 60 older people can be accommodated over two floors. The ground floor supported people who may be living with dementia. Nursing care was available on both floors. 41 people used the service when we visited.

The service had a registered manager in place who was new in post since our last inspection. 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.

People, their relatives and the staff we spoke with all felt the service had improved. They described the registered managers approach as positive and open. They told us the good leadership by the registered manager had improved quality and safety. Staff felt supported and morale was good. Training for staff was overall good. A definite team approach was seen which made people feel happy and well cared for.

Appropriate checks were completed by the registered manager and provider to ensure safety and quality. This included seeking feedback from people and their relatives and using information when concerns were raised positively. If things could be better the registered manager implemented actions to ensure continuous improvement.

We saw systems were safe in areas such as medicines, health and safety and risk management. We made a recommendation that the provider review the tool they use to understand the number of staff required. This was to ensure enough staff were available to support people with complex needs living with dementia.

We made a recommendation that staff receive more training around how to deal with people who display anxiety and or distress. In addition that a new care plan format be devised to help staff understand how to intervene in such situations.

Recruitment of the providers permanent staff was safe. Where agency workers were used the registered manager had not ensured appropriate information was received from the agency. This was something the registered manager dealt with during the inspection.

Positive change continued to be introduced by the provider, for example an electronic care plan system which will enable better review of people’s health, wellbeing and experience of the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Relatives told us they were fully involved in developing the care and support for their family member. People felt staff knew them well and used this information to support them in a person-centred way.

People had access to appropriate healthcare support and the team had good links with healthcare professionals. Positive initiatives had been introduced around hydration and pressure area care which meant people had maintained good health. Where people living with dementia required additional support to access health care this was supported if needed. People were supported with palliative care in conjunction with healthcare professionals to ensure they were pain free and comfortable.

Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe, well cared for and were positive about the service. They were treated with kindness and respect. They felt staff were well trained to provide effective support. Staff were aware of what good care looks like and through positive leadership had bee

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

A recommendation was made that staff received appropriate training to enable them to respond more confidently when people displayed anxiety or distress. Also, that appropriate care plans supported staff to know the best way to intervene.

A recommendation was made that the provider review their tool which determines staffing levels to ensure staff have the time to deliver timely and meaningful support to people living with dementia.

There were arrangements in place to ensure people received medication in a safe way, recruitment was safe and for the environment and equipment to be managed safely. Safer checks of agency workers were needed.



Updated 2 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff overall received training and supervision to enable them to fulfil their role.

People enjoyed the food on offer and they had access to snacks and drinks throughout the day.

People were supported to maintain good health and initiatives to prevent ill health had been successful.



Updated 2 August 2018

The service was caring.

People told us they were supported by caring staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff could describe the likes, dislikes and preferences of people who used the service. They used this information to deliver person centred care.



Updated 2 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People who used the service and relatives were involved in decisions about their care and support needs.

People also had opportunities to take part in activities of their choice inside and outside the service. People were supported and encouraged with their hobbies and interests.

People told us if they were unhappy they would tell the registered manager and staff. They were confident they would be listened to.



Updated 2 August 2018

The service was well led.

The service had a registered manager who understood the responsibilities of their role. Everyone we spoke with told us the registered manager was approachable and was a good leader.

People were regularly asked for their views and their suggestions were acted upon.

Quality assurance systems were in place to ensure the quality of care and safety was maintained.