We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sophie House 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 Sophie House, you can give feedback on this service.
• People enjoyed living at Sophie House and were cared for by staff who respected them and promoted people’s independence.
• Care plans reflected people’s preferred communication methods and were based on people’s, their relatives and other health and social care professionals’ views.
• People’s access to a range of interesting things to do had been further developed. People were supported to enjoy a range of activities which reflected their interests, and enhanced their lives. This included support to enjoy music therapy, the use of a hydro pool and time spent in the community, doing things they liked.
• People were supported to keep in touch with others who were important to them.
• People had access to the healthcare they required. Staff had been provided with clear guidance so people would receive the support they needed if they required emergency health care.
• Staff understood people’s safety needs well and supported people so their individual risks were reduced. People were supported to have their medicines regularly, by staff who were competent to do this. People's medicines were regularly reviewed and checked.
• The environment at the home was regularly checked, and there were sufficient staff to care for people. The risk of accidental harm or infections was reduced as staff used the resources and equipment provided to do this.
• Staff had received training and developed the skills they needed to care for people. Staff highlighted this helped them to provide good care to people.
• People’s care needs were assessed and plans put in place based on their individual needs, so people would enjoy a good level of well-being.
• People, their relatives and staff were encouraged to make any suggestions for improving the care provided and the service further.
• The registered manager and staff reflected on the care provided, so improvements in people’s care would be driven through.
• We found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; More information is available in the full report
Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Sophie House was published on 13 July 2016.
About the service: Sophie House is a residential care home with nursing, providing personal care and accommodation. There were eleven people living permanently at the home at the time of our inspection. People living at Sophie House lived with a combination of physical disabilities, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. Sophie House provides care and accommodation to children and adults, on either a short-term or long-term basis.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
A registered manager was in post at the time of our 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 were supported to maintain some independence and to take positive risks. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns about people’s safety. Staff understood risks associated with people’s needs and how to keep them safe. There were enough staff on duty to respond to people’s health needs at the times when they needed support. The provider completed checks to ensure staff were suitable and safe to work at the home.
People had good relationships with the staff. It was a relaxed atmosphere with staff spending quality time with people in a homely atmosphere. People were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People received care and support to meet their diverse needs including people who had complex health needs.
People’s health needs were responded to effectively with people being supported to access doctors and other health professionals when required. People had daily access to health professionals like speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists. People were supported to have their medicines when needed. Medicines were stored and administered appropriately.
People had access to a varied diet of food and drink. People were supported to have their food and drink safely. Where recommendations had been made by other professionals regarding their diet or health needs these had been acted upon by staff.
Staff understood people’s individual communication styles and were able to communicate effectively with people. People’s permission was sought before any care or support was given. Time was taken to make sure that people could make choices and decisions about the care and support they received.
People were supported by staff that had the knowledge and skills to understand and meet their health needs. Staff were well supported and had access to additional training specific to people’s needs. Staff felt that they were able to contact the registered manager at any time if they needed support or guidance.
Relatives and staff views on the care and support provided was gathered on a regular basis. The registered manager was approachable and was willing to listen to views and opinions. There had been recent improvements made to how feedback was used to identify any areas for action or improvements to be made. A range of audits and checks were also completed regularly to ensure that good standards were maintained.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
People we spoke with told us that they felt their relatives were safe living at the home and their needs were met by staff that knew them. One staff member also told us that they felt people were safe and their needs were met.
Following our last inspection we found that improvements had been made to how incidents were reported. Staff told us that they had all received safeguarding training. The staff we spoke with demonstrated to us that they had an understanding of how to safeguard the people that lived there from harm, and what to do if they had concerns.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.
We checked the medicines of people who lived at the home. At the last inspection we found that medicine administration record (MAR) charts were not always accurately completed. During this inspection improvements had been made to the medicine records. We found that medicines were stored and administered safely.
Is the service effective?
We observed that people received appropriate care to meet their physical needs and maintain their comfort. All of the staff we spoke with told us about the individual needs of the people that lived there. At the last inspection it was found that not all staff received sufficient training to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made. We found that staff received the training that was needed to make sure that they could carry out their roles effectively. We also found that staff also attended training specific to the individual needs of the people that lived there. For example we saw that people had training about what to look for and how to respond to a person's epilepsy. Staff told us that they felt this helped them to improve their understanding of people's needs.
Is the service caring?
We observed that staff were kind and polite. We found that staff treated the people that lived there with dignity and respect. All the staff we spoke with were able to tell us about people's individual likes and dislikes. People's wishes had been respected. For example we saw where one person indicated through their movements that they wanted to have their food in a particular area of the home. We saw that staff respected this.
Is the service responsive?
We found that the care records showed that people that lived at the home saw other professionals including the district nurses and doctors when their health needs changed. The provider had acted appropriately to guidance from other professionals when people's needs changed. People told us that they felt if their relatives needs changed the staff were always quick to respond and contact other professionals. For example following a change in a person's epilepsy we found that a referral for a specialist had been made to provide additional support and training around their individual needs. This had been following a period of monitoring of their seizures by the staff.
At our last inspection we found that there was not an effective complaints system in place. People had told us that they felt that the provider did not welcome criticism, and that concerns were not satisfactorily addressed. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made. The procedure had been improved and there were now further checks by the manager and contact with the person making the complaint to ensure that concerns can be fully addressed.
Is the service well led?
At our last inspection the provider did not have any systems in place to effectively monitor the quality of the service. For example we had found that it was not clear how actions for improvement were being monitored to ensure that they had been actioned within an appropriate period of time. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made. Regular audits and satisfaction questionnaires for staff and families meant that the quality assurance systems now in place enabled the provider to highlight and address shortfalls in a timely manner.
At the time of inspection the provider had appointed a new manager. This manager told us that they were in the process of becoming registered with the CQC. We found that staff felt that the changes made to the management of the home were positive, and staff told us that they felt supported in their roles.
People who lived at Sophie House had complex needs due to the conditions they were living with. This meant they could not tell us about their care themselves. Because of this we contacted relatives and professionals involved in people's care. This helped us to gain a wider view of the service provided.
Sophie House had extensive specialist facilities to cater for people's complex needs. The staff we met were friendly and we saw them being caring and gentle with people. Many of the people we spoke with were very positive about the service. People made comments such as, "It is a safe, happy, caring, loving environment" and, "We get their full attention whenever we visit". Some people gave us a more negative view of Sophie House and told us that their concerns had not been dealt with to their satisfaction.
Sophie House was a light and spacious purpose built building with extensive specialist facilities to cater for people's complex needs. The staff we met were friendly and we saw them being caring and gentle with people. Many of the people we spoke with were very positive about the service. People made comments such as, "it is a wonderful place in our opinion" and " I have felt involved and included - very much part of the team". Some people gave us a more mixed view of the service and voiced some concerns.
We found some positive areas during our inspection but also a number where improvements and developments were needed.