Archived: Sunrise of Frognal

Updated 19 July 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Before the inspection we looked at all the information we held about the service. This information included the statutory notifications that the service sent to the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events that the service is required to send us by law. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, details about what the service does well and about any improvements they plan to make. We also contacted health and social care professionals and the local authority safeguarding team for feedback about the service. We used this information to help inform our inspection planning.

This inspection took place on 06, 07 and 08 June 2016 and was unannounced. The service was inspected by a specialist nurse advisor, a pharmacy specialist, one adult social care inspector, and an expert by experience on 06 June 2016. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The specialist nurse advisor, adult social care inspector, and expert by experience returned to the service on 07 June and the adult social care inspector returned again to complete the inspection on 08 June 2016.

We spoke with 21 people who used the service, five relatives and visitors, 14 staff, three external healthcare professionals, the deputy manager, and the registered manager. Not everyone at the service could communicate their views to us so we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at 14 people’s care records and 10 staff records. We also looked at records related to the management of the service such as details about the administration of medicines, complaints, accidents and incidents, safeguarding, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, health and safety, and quality assurance and monitoring.

Updated 19 July 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on 06, 07 and 08 June 2016.

Sunrise of Frognal is a care home service for up to 131 older people living with dementia, sensory impairment or a physical disability. There were 114 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

We previously carried out an unannounced inspection of this service on 25 July 2014. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations that we assessed.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

At this inspection we found that staff knew how to keep people safe. The service had clear procedures to support staff to recognise and respond to abuse. The registered manager and staff completed safeguarding training. Staff completed risk assessments for every person who used the service which were up to date and included detailed guidance for staff to reduce risks. There was an effective system to manage accidents and incidents, and to prevent them happening again. The service had arrangements in place to deal with emergencies. The service carried out comprehensive background checks of staff before they started working and there were enough staff on duty to support to people when required. Staff supported people so that they took their medicines safely.

The provider had taken action to ensure the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were followed. Staff assessed people’s nutritional needs and supported them to have a balanced diet. Staff supported people to access the healthcare services they required and monitored their healthcare appointments.

People or their relatives where appropriate, were involved in the assessment, planning and review of their care. Staff considered people’s choices, health and social care needs, and their general wellbeing. Staff prepared, reviewed, and updated care plans for every person. The care plans were person centred and reflected people’s current needs.

Staff supported people in a way which was kind, caring, and respectful. Staff also protected people’s privacy, dignity, and human rights.

The service supported people to take part in a range of activities in support of their need for social interaction and stimulation. The service had a clear policy and procedure about managing complaints. People knew how to complain and told us they would do so if necessary.

There was a positive culture at the home where people felt included and consulted. People and their relatives commented positively about staff and the registered manager. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.

The service sought the views of people who used the services, their relatives, and staff to help drive improvements. The provider had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of services people received, and to make improvements where required. Staff used the results of audits to identify how improvements could be made to the service.