Archived: Sunnyside

At our last inspection in July 2017 we rated the service good overall.

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. We found the service had improved in the responsive domain and we now found it outstanding in that area. We found the service remained good overall.

Why the service is rated good.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. We found them to be passionately committed to providing responsive, person-centred support to people. All the staff we spoke with shared this passion, commitment and enthusiasm. Everyone we spoke with said the registered manager led by example and the person-centred care and support came from their lead.

Staff were very enthusiastic and told us they really enjoyed working at Sunnyside. People who used the service were at the centre of their work. They knew about people’s needs, wishes and goals and were committed to making sure they were met. People told us managers and staff went the extra mile to provide a person centred and extremely responsive service. People who used the service were extremely positive about the staff and living at the home.

Systems in place ensured each individual was at the heart of the service they received. People were actively encouraged to be involved in developing their care records. The service had a holistic approach to planning and providing care and support. Visitors told us they felt their views and knowledge was valued.

An extremely wide range of activities were provided both in the home and in the wider community. They service placed a clear emphasis on the importance of social contact, friendships and people remaining part of the wider community. Staff at the home were passionately committed to developing intergenerational working. We found the service promoted well-being and protected people from the risks of social isolation and loneliness.

Staff were patient and very calm and extremely respectful. Staff treated people with dignity and we saw people were relaxed and comfortable in their surroundings. There was lots of chatting and appropriate humour and laughter. Throughout our inspection, we were consistently told us how homely Sunnyside was.

Peoples end of life wished were identified and respected. Staff showed genuine compassion and respect for people’s wishes.

Feedback was actively sought from people who used the service, their families and friends. There was a procedure to help people to complain if they wanted to. People told us they had no complaints. Technology and social media were used to share information and photographs.

Medicines were managed safely and people were supported to ensure their health needs were met.

People were safe because there were effective risk assessments in place. The service had a positive approach to risk taking. The registered manager was proactive in improving the response to the risk of falls. Systems were in place to keep people safe from abuse or avoidable harm.

Accidents and incidents were monitored. These records were analysed each month so that they could review the action taken and identify any patterns or lessons that could be learned to prevent future occurrences.

Health and safety checks had been carried out. Premises and equipment had been serviced and maintained appropriately. The home was clean, bright, nicely furnished and well decorated.

Staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. Staff members had been safely recruited and there were sufficient numbers of staff to provide people with the person-centred support they needed.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were being met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and continually improve the quality of the service provided. Policies and procedures were in place and were kept under review.

The provider had notified CQC of significant events and displayed the rating from the last report.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

People still felt safe living at the home. Staff understood how to recognise, respond to and report abuse. The risks to people had been assessed and kept under review with their involvement, and plans implemented to manage these. People’s needs could be met safely as appropriate staffing levels were maintained. People’s medicines were handled and administered in line with good practice.

People still had confidence in the staff team’s knowledge and skills. Staff had the training, supervision and support necessary to work safely and effectively. The management team and staff understood people's rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s individual dietary and nutritional needs were assessed and managed. Staff helped people to access a range of healthcare services to ensure their health needs were met.

Staff took a caring and compassionate approach towards their work, and knew people well. People's contribution to care planning and decision-making was encouraged and facilitated. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People received care and support that took into account their individual needs and requirements. People were supported to spend time doing things they found enjoyable and to participate in social activities. People knew how to raise complaints and concerns about the service, and felt comfortable doing so.

The management team promoted open communication with people, their relatives and the community professionals involved in people’s care. People’s relatives and most staff found the management team approachable. The provider carried out quality assurance audits and checks to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service people received.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Many of the people who used the service were unable to fully express their views due to their varying levels of dementia and limited abilities to communicate verbally. People who were able to talk with us told us: 'It's all right. I know all the staff'. And: 'They do their job and that's it'.

Relatives told us: 'My [relative] has a really good key worker' And: 'The staff seem very understanding and she gets what she needs'.

We looked at the care records of four people using the service. Each contained appropriate documentation and information regarding the person's initial admission into the home. Care plans and associated risk assessments were in place and all had been regularly reviewed.

The home had systems in place and staff were suitably trained so that people who used the service received their medicines in a safe manner.

We found that the home had a robust recruitment and selection process in place for staff and kept appropriate records.

A comprehensive complaints policy was in place and people received sufficient information on how to make a complaint if needed. Records we saw indicated that complaints were dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner.