Sunridge Court

Updated 4 November 2023

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by 1 inspector and 1 Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service

Service and service type

Sunridge Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement dependent on their registration with us. Sunridge Court is a care home without nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed the information we already held about this service. This included details of its registration, previous inspection reports and any notifications of significant incidents the provider had sent us. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well and we used all this information to plan our inspection. This information helps support our inspections. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 5 people who used the service about their experience of the care provided. We also spoke with 3 relatives of people who used the service and asked them their experiences. We spoke with 11 members of staff including the interim head of care for the provider, the registered manager, the receptionist, an administrator, the housekeeper and 6 care staff. We also spoke with 1 visiting health care professional. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records. This included 5 people’s care records and multiple medicines records. We looked at 5 staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

Updated 4 November 2023

About the service

Sunridge Court is a residential care home which was providing personal care to 36 people at the time of our inspection. All people living at the service were older people, some of whom had dementia. The service can support up to 44 people in one adapted building over three floors.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Medicines were managed safely. However, we have made a recommendation about best practice with regards to recording loose medicines upon admission. There were systems in place to help protect people from abuse. Infection control practice sought to keep people safe from infection and visitors to the service were permitted. People’s risks were assessed and monitored. People told us there were enough staff working at the service. Recruitment processes were robust. Lessons were learned when things went wrong as incidents were recorded and actions completed to keep people safe.

People’s needs were assessed in line with the law, prior to their admission. Staff received induction and training, so they knew how to work effectively with people. Staff were supported in their role through supervision. People were supported to eat, drink and maintain healthy diets. Staff communicated effectively with other agencies, including health care services, to ensure people received good care. The provider had adapted the building to ensure it met people’s needs and people could decorate their rooms as they pleased. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s choices were respected, and decisions made in their best interests.

The service was caring. People and relatives thought staff were caring. People were supported to express their views. People’s privacy and dignity were respected, and their independence promoted.

Care plans were person-centred, and staff knew what people liked. People’s communication needs were met. People were able to take part in activities they could enjoy. People and relatives could complain and when they did, complaints were responded to appropriately. The service recorded people’s end of life wishes and people and relatives were treated with respect and dignity when people approached the end of their lives.

A positive person-centred culture was promoted. People, relatives and staff thought highly of the service and the management team. The registered manager understood duty of candour and acted appropriately when it was felt the service could do better. Staff understood their roles and the registered manager fulfilled the service’s regulatory requirements. People, relatives and staff were able to be engaged and involved with the service through meetings. There were quality assurance systems so care could be monitored and improved. The service worked with other agencies to the benefit of people using the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for the service was good (published on 28 February 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.