• Care Home
  • Care home

Sutton Manor

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Priestsic Road, Sutton-in-ashfield, NG17 2AH

Provided and run by:
Ashmere Nottinghamshire Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Our view of the service

About the service

Sutton Manor is a residential care home. There were 31 people using the service at the time of inspection.

 

Who the service is for

The service supports people and people living with dementia.

 

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 11 May 2026 and 14 May 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

 

At this assessment, we found people received care from staff who were kind, caring and respectful. People told us they generally felt safe and spoke positively about staff, describing them as friendly, gentle and attentive. We observed positive interactions throughout the inspection, and staff sought consent when supporting people with their care. People’s immediate needs were met in a timely way, and there was evidence that people were offered choice in their day‑to‑day lives, including meals and routines.

Medicines were managed safely and effectively. Medicines were stored appropriately, records were complete, and we found no gaps in the medicines administration records we reviewed. As required medicines protocols were clear and provided staff with appropriate guidance.

Leaders and staff were responsive when issues were identified. Some infection prevention and control and environmental issues were identified. These were addressed promptly by managers, and actions were taken during the inspection to reduce risks to people. This demonstrated a willingness to learn and improve, although it also highlighted the need for governance systems to be more effective in identifying concerns earlier.

We found further examples where oversight had improved but not yet consistently embedded. This included equipment checks, maintenance records and some aspects of recruitment governance. Where gaps were identified, the provider took action and told us they were reviewing processes to strengthen assurance and oversight.

People’s experiences of activities were mixed. People spoke positively about staff, although some told us they would like more varied activities, particularly at weekends, and greater use of facilities such as outdoor spaces. We saw increased engagement during the inspection, and the provider had already begun introducing additional activities and resources to enhance people’s experiences.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. There was 1 instance where a person’s decisions and capacity to make choice was unclear. This was highlighted and the provider engaged the person to ensure their decisions were clearly documented.

Overall, leaders demonstrated a positive and open approach to learning and improvement. The provider recognised some areas needed to be embedded to ensure governance systems were consistently effective and risks were identified promptly, people were supported by caring staff and leaders who responded appropriately when concerns were raised.

31 January 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Sutton Manor is a purpose-built care home providing accommodation for up to 45 people requiring nursing or personal care. At the time of our inspection, 32 people were living at the service. The accommodation was established over two floors. On the ground floor there was a large double height reception area, bedrooms a dining area, a large communal lounge, which was also used for delivering activities, plus two smaller quieter lounges off this. On the second floor there were bedrooms and office space. Access between the floors was via a lift or staircase which were secured to prevent risk of injury from fall.

People’s experience of using this service:

People felt safe and staff ensured that risks to their health and safety were reduced. We found that sufficient staff were deployed to safely meet people’s needs. Staff had received training to ensure they had the knowledge to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm or abuse, whilst providing care.

People were protected from the risk of an acquired health infection, as the service employed dedicated cleaning staff to ensure the environment was clean and had appropriate policies and procedures to monitor and reduce the risk

Systems were in place to support people to take their medicines safely. Staff received relevant training and felt well supported. People were asked for their consent to their care and appropriate steps were taken to support people who lacked capacity to make decisions.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain good health.

There were positive and caring relationships between people using the service and the staff who cared for them. Staff promoted people's right to make their own decisions about their care where possible and respected the choices they made. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who understood the importance of this.

People received person-centred and responsive care from staff who had a clear understanding of their current support needs. Care plans were in place, which provided information about the care people required.

People knew how to make a complaint and there was a clear complaints procedure in place.

When people were at the end of their life the service had effective measures in place to support them and ensure their wishes and needs were met.

An open and transparent culture enabled people and staff to speak up if they wished to. The management team provided strong leadership and a clear direction to staff.

There were robust quality monitoring procedures in place. The management structure of the service was clear.

People's safety had been considered and risks had been reduced by the introduction of equipment or guidance. Staff had received training in relation to safeguarding and knew how to protect people from harm.

Information was provided in a range of formats to support understanding. People were able to access spiritual support to meet their religious beliefs.

There was a registered manager at the home and the rating was displayed at the home and on their website. When required notifications had been completed to inform us of events and incidents, this helped us the monitor the action the provider had taken.

Rating at last inspection: Not previously rated under this registration

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection. At this inspection we found the service was Good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.