Sunningdale House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People felt safe and protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Systems were in place to keep people safe. There was a safeguarding policy, staff had safeguarding training and told us how they would report any concerns. Staff said they were confident all concerns would be dealt with appropriately. Staff supported people who had capacity to make decisions about risk. Risk assessments were completed to promote independence and minimise risks to people. Care plans were clear and provided guidance to staff to keep people safe. The provider ensured there were sufficient, safely recruited staff on duty, who had received training to meet people’s needs. Leaders created and embedded a positive and proactive learning culture at the service. Any incidents or accidents were reviewed and investigated by the registered manager. They reviewed individual accidents and incidents to check that all necessary action had been taken in response. They also monitored these records to identify any developing trends that might indicate further changes were needed. This helped to maximise people’s safety and enabled staff to deliver safe care and support.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe living at the service. People and their relatives knew who to speak with if they had any concerns. They told us the registered manager and staff were approachable and would listen to any concerns. During the site visit we saw consistently kind and respectful interactions between people and staff. People’s human rights were being respected. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw staff supported people to make as many of their own decisions as possible. Staff knew about people’s capacity to make decisions, and this was documented.

Staff received safeguarding training to help them understand and identify possible signs of abuse and the appropriate action to take. The provider’s safeguarding policy gave clear guidance for staff about how to raise a safeguarding alert. When people had been assessed as lacking mental capacity to make a certain decision, staff clearly recorded assessments and any best interest decisions. Where needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to deprivation of liberty authorisations were being met.

People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse. Staff were confident to speak up if they had any concerns about people’s safety or wellbeing.

Risks to people were managed to ensure they were safe but without restricting their freedom, choice and control. People were supported and encouraged to be as independent as possible, with measures in place to reduce known risks. For example, one person explained they had a special mat in their room to alert staff should they fall. The person found this reassuring without being restrictive.

Detailed care plans were in place which staff understood and followed. The provider assessed risks to ensure people were safe and took action to mitigate any identified risks. Staff liaised with relevant external professionals to ensure changes in people’s needs, such as health or behavioural, were reviewed and supported appropriately.

Staff kept people safe by regularly reviewing and updating people's risk assessments and their care plans as their needs changed. Care plans were designed to guide staff practice to ensure people’s needs and preferences were met.

Staff were on hand to support people. They ensured people had the correct equipment when mobilising. Staff recognised signs when one people experienced distress and knew how to support them effectively.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were cared for by staff who had been safely recruited. Records confirmed staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal to help them develop within their role. Staff training matrix confirmed staff received training appropriate to their roles. New staff had a thorough induction and were able to spend time shadowing more experienced members of staff before working alone. They were expected to complete the modules from the Care Certificate if no previous experience or qualifications in health and social care. The provider used a dependency tool to help determine staffing levels.

People spoke highly of staff’s approach and attitude, and we observed people knew and trusted staff. Comments included, “The staff and management here are very good. I would recommend it as a nice place to be” and “They are all very nice, friendly staff”. Apart from one person, people said staff were always available when they needed help or support. People said if they rang their call bells staff responded promptly. One person reported waiting for up to 10 minutes on occasion for support. The registered manager was monitoring the call bell response times to identify any areas for movement. Staff were safely recruited.

Staff were happy in their roles and felt well supported. They told us they received appropriate training and supervision. Overall, they felt staffing levels were sufficient to be able deliver safe care and support. The provider used a dependency tool to determine staffing levels.

Throughout the day we observed there were adequate staff to meet people's needs and to keep them safe. Call bells were answered quickly. Staffing levels were generally maintained at the provider’s preferred level unless, for example, there was very short notice absence due to sickness.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.