Background to this inspection
Updated
10 January 2017
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.
This inspection took place on 9 November 2016 and was unannounced. It was conducted by four inspectors and two experts by experience (Ex by Ex). An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the provider. This included information sent to us by the provider in the form of notifications and safeguarding adult referrals made to the local authority. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We contacted the local authority quality assurance and safeguarding team to ask them for their views on the service and if they had any concerns, no concerns were raised.
Before the inspection, the registered manager completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This information was reviewed to see if we would need to focus on any particular areas of the home.
We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service. We spoke with 21 people, two relatives, 12 staff members and the registered manager.
We spent time observing care and support provided throughout the day of inspection, at lunch time and in the communal areas. We reviewed a variety of documents which included ten people’s care plans, risk assessments and 32 people’s medicine administration records (MAR). We also reviewed four weeks of duty rotas, some health and safety and quality assurance records and six staff recruitment records. We also looked at a range of the provider’s policy documents. We asked the registered manager to send us some additional information following our visit, which they did.
We last inspected the service on 30 July 2013 and no concerns were identified.
Updated
10 January 2017
Sunrise Banstead Operations Limited is a residential care home. The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 97 people. The home is divided into two ‘neighbourhoods’, assisted living and reminiscence. Reminiscence provides care to people with dementia. The assisted living provided care and support to people who may have mobility and some health needs. At the time of our inspection there were 91 people living in the home.
The home was run by a registered manager, who was present on the day of the inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People’s human rights could have been affected because the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act were not always followed. Some mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had occurred where people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care.
Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had not always followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected. DoLS applications had not been made for two people who had their freedom restricted. Since the inspection, the registered manager has confirmed that the applications have been completed. We have made a recommendation.
People were protected from avoidable harm. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to demonstrate that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns.
There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. There were recruitment practises in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with people. There were sufficient staff numbers deployed to meet people’s needs.
People’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant and accurate records.
Staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these. Risk assessments were in place for a variety of tasks such as personal care, use of equipment and some health needs and they were updated frequently. The registered manager ensured that actions had been taken after incidents and accidents occurred.
People had sufficient to eat and drink. People were offered a choice of what they would like to eat and drink. For those people that needed it, weights were monitored on a regular basis to ensure that people remained healthy.
People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. People had regular access to health care professionals.
Staff were trained and had sufficient skills and knowledge to support people effectively. There was a training programme in place to ensure staff could meet people’s needs. Staff received regular supervision.
People were well cared for and positive relationships had been established between people and staff. Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner.
People, relatives and health professionals were involved in planning peoples care. People’s choices and views were respected by staff. Staff and the management knew people’s choices and preferences. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.
People received a personalised service. Care plans contained sufficient detail for staff to support people effectively. We have made a recommendation about detailing people’s life histories. People were supported to maintain their independence.
There were range activities in place which people enjoyed. Activities included drives out on the minibus, sewing groups, tea dances, reminiscence and physical exercise.
The home listened to peoples, relatives and staff views. There was a complaints procedure in place. The registered manager had responded to complaints in line with the provider’s policy.
The management promoted an open and person centred culture. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager. People and their relatives told us they felt that the management was approachable and responsive.
There were robust procedures in place to monitor, evaluate and improve the quality of care provided. Staff were motivated and aware of their responsibilities. The manager understood the requirements of CQC and sent in appropriate notifications.