• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Sunnyfield Support Services Ltd

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Suite 22 The Globe Centre, St. James Square, Accrington, BB5 0RE (01524) 599316

Provided and run by:
Sunnyfield Support Services Ltd

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

All Inspections

7 February 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Sunnyfield Support Services Limited is a domiciliary care service which was providing support to 70 people in their own homes on the day of our inspection. It provides support to adults with a learning disability or people living with an autistic spectrum disorder. The service provides this support in assisted living schemes and, on occasions, where people have a good degree of independence in their own traditional home setting.

People's experience of using this service:

¿ The service had deteriorated overall since our last inspection from an outstanding service to one that requires improvement.

¿ Significant environmental safety issues were found at two of the assisted living schemes that we visited during the inspection. As a result, we found one breach of the regulations in relation to these issues.

¿ Some recruitment issues meant that the service could not be satisfied that all staff had been recruited safely. We have made a recommendation about this that can be seen in the 'safe' section of the report.

¿ Checking and auditing systems had not picked up on the issues seen at the inspection.

¿ The service met the characteristics of good in three out of five domains and requires improvement in two out of five domains.

¿ There were also good practices within the service.

¿ People were assisted to have maximum choice and control over their lives.

¿ People who used the service, their relatives and staff members gave us positive feedback about the service and the management.

¿ Some systems and processes within the service ensured people were safe but others had not picked up on the issues seen at the inspection.

¿ Staff knew people well and had built positive relationships with people they supported.

¿ People had an active say in how the service was operated and managed through meetings, surveys and reviews.

¿ We were satisfied that the registered manager was in the process of putting in place effective governance systems and processes to ensure that the service improved. This area needed to be improved and we have made a recommendation about this that can be seen in the 'well-led' section of the report.

¿ More information is contained in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: The service was rated outstanding overall. Our last report was published on 15 January 2016.

Why we inspected: This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, high quality care.

Further inspections will be planned for future dates.

28 & 30 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This announced inspection took place on 28 & 30 September 2015.

Sunnyfield Support Services is a family owned and family run domiciliary care agency. It provides support to adults with a learning disability or people living with an autistic spectrum disorder. Support is provided to people who live in the Lancaster and Morecambe area. The agency provides a range of person centred services including five supported living schemes and domiciliary care to people living in their own homes. The agency helps with personal care, domestic tasks and supports people to enjoy leisure activities. At the time of inspection Sunnyfield Support Services was providing care and support to seventy people. Support packages ranged from a couple of hours per week up to twenty four hour support.

The office base is located in a purpose built office block and staffed during office hours. An out of hours contact telephone number is provided in case of emergency.

The service was last inspected on 08 April 2013 and was found to be meeting all the assessed standards. People who used the service and their relatives were positive about the way in which the service was delivered.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

There was an exuberant atmosphere throughout the organisation and people spoke positively about the support provided. We were consistently informed by people who used the service, relatives and health professionals that care provided was of high quality and person centred. Staff were repeatedly described as committed, thoughtful and dedicated.

The organisation placed an emphasis upon citizenship and community participation. People who used the service told us they were encouraged to live active lives and participate as valued members of their community. People were supported to attend various community groups according to their preferred wishes and hobbies. Staff enabled people to use their gifts and talents to develop their self-esteem and independence.

A holistic approach was taken to meet people’s health care needs. The registered provider addressed psychological and social needs alongside physical health. The registered provider worked in partnership with other care professionals to meet needs and referred to appropriate guidance when developing care plans. Health care needs were met in a proactive manner. People who used the service were offered peer support from other people who used the service to promote health care.

When people required support with their medicines, the registered provider had suitable arrangements in place. Medicines were safely stored and appropriate arrangements for administering them were in place. People who could manage their own medicines and had capacity were encouraged to manage their own medicines.

The registered provider was proactive in ensuring any safeguarding concerns were identified and acted upon in a timely manner. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to notify relevant agencies when they noted concerns. One staff member informed us when there had been a need to report a safeguarding concern they were supported by the registered provider throughout the process. People told us they felt safe when using the service and if they had any concerns they could speak to management who would appropriately respond.

People who used the service were encouraged to take risks should they so wish. This enabled people to develop new skills and promote independence. When people chose to take risks, they were appropriately managed. This allowed people freedom to experience new opportunities as a way of self-development and to develop self-esteem.

Care was provided in a person centred way. People were routinely involved in their own care planning and the development of their service. The registered provider kept up to date comprehensive records for each person and any changes in people’s needs were communicated to relevant people so care needs could be addressed in a timely manner.

The registered provider understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Leadership within the organisation was strong. Managers had a clear vision of what was required of a quality service and this spread throughout the organisation. All staff were respectful of management and demonstrated a commitment to working towards the shared values of the organisation.

People who used the service, relatives and health professionals commended staff knowledge. They told us they were confident that people who used the service were supported by competent staff. Staff praised the training and development opportunities offered within the organisation.

The registered provider addressed learning styles of all staff and offered training by a variety of sources. Training was individualised for all staff according to the needs of the people they supported and was often responsive to changes within the organisation. Staff were encouraged to continually improve their skills and were not placed in situations for which they were not trained. Staff with additional needs were supported by management to complete training. Staff spoke highly of the caring nature of the registered provider and told us they felt supported within their role.

The registered provider placed emphasis on providing quality and improving service provision. The registered provider said they had an ethos of “continuous improvement.” Quality of care was audited using national and local standards as a means to improve the service. The registered providers had signed up to various charters and were self-assessing themselves in order to improve quality. Staff throughout the organisation also embraced the need to strive for continual improvement.

The organisation was committed to ongoing improvement for both people who used the service and staff. This led staff to have high expectations for the people they supported encouraging them to develop to the best of their ability. We were told by relatives of people who used the service that people were nurtured and developed and lives were positively enhanced by the service provider. People were empowered to find their voices and encouraged to speak up.

The organisation had recently undergone a period of rapid growth and the management team had worked with an external organisation to develop a strategy for the organisation. The registered provider embraced change and consulted with staff and included them in the restructure. All employees we spoke with were happy with the new structure.

People who used the service were at the heart of the organisation and were encouraged to be part of Sunnyfield Support Services organisation. People were offered the opportunity to be involved in the recruitment of their own staff and other roles within the organisation.

Staff skills were matched to people who used the service to ensure compatibility and to increase the likelihood of positive outcomes for the person. The registered provider embraced diversity and recruited according to the needs and requirements of the people who used the service.

The registered provider continually sought views from people who used the service and their relatives through a variety of means. When feedback was provided it was taken seriously and acted upon in a timely manner. People who used the service were empowered to understand their rights to complain and when people had experience of complaining they were assured it was dealt with effectively.

8 April 2013

During a routine inspection

During the course of the visit we spoke with the registered manager and a care manager at the office base. We also visited two of the supported houses and spoke with three people living in one house and a single person living in his own home at the other property. We spoke with the support workers on duty at the two houses. We also had a telephone discussion with two parents of young people who were also being supported by the service.

The relatives we spoke with told us that any proposed change to the support provided was discussed with them, so they always felt involved in decision making. One relative told us, 'They always keep in contact with us. Before it started (the service) we had a meeting and they went through everything. I was happy to sign the support plan and we have a copy at home. Everything was set up right at the beginning, there has never been a problem but they contact me and ask if everything is alright'.

People supported by the service living in the shared homes spoke positively about the support they received. One person told us, 'I find it hard to make choices but staff sit down and talk it through with us. They are good on guiding us on things. They often asked if I am happy with things, I like the staff they are very good'.

Nobody we spoke with and any concerns about the service or the people that supported them. However the people told us that they knew who to speak with if they had any worries or concerns.