We carried out a review of the data available to us about ExtraCare Charitable Trust Sunley Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about ExtraCare Charitable Trust Sunley Court, you can give feedback on this service.
At this inspection, we found the service remained Good in Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The service had progressed to Outstanding in Effective giving it an overall rating of Good.
Sunley Court provides care and support to people living in specialist 'extra care' housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant's own home. People's care and housing were provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for extra care housing. This inspection looked at people's personal care and support services.
Not everyone living at Sunley Court was receiving personal care. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care', help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do receive personal care we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people receiving personal care.
Sunley Court is situated in a purpose-designed building in Kettering. There were 40 one bedroomed apartments. These were either rented or part of a shared ownership scheme. There was a range of on-site facilities including a restaurant, gardens and social and quiet lounges.
The service had a registered manager. This 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.
There was an all-inclusive approach to assessing, planning and delivering care and support. It demonstrated a holistic approach to assessing people’s needs to ensure their physical, mental health, social and financial needs were identified. The service looked for innovative approaches to care and support, and how it should be delivered. Training was tailored to meet people's individual needs and the provider recognised that the on-going development of staff skills, competence and knowledge was central to ensuring high-quality care and support.
People experienced extremely positive outcomes regarding their health and wellbeing. There were champions within the service who actively supported staff to make sure people experienced good healthcare outcomes leading to an exceptional quality of life. A well-being advisor was available to support people with anything that could affect their health and wellbeing and action was taken quickly to address this. There was a specially trained staff member who was called The Locksmith. They worked with outside agencies to support people living with dementia and offered tailored activities for people living with dementia-related conditions. The whole focus of people's care was individualised and centred around promoting people's independence as well as their physical and mental well-being.
People continued to feel safe at the service and staff knew how to protect them from harm. Managers and staff monitored people’s well-being and took preventative action to keep them safe. There were enough staff on duty to support people and meet their needs. Staff supported some people with their medicines and this was done safely. Staff were trained in infection control and wore PPE (personal protective equipment) to reduce the risk of the spread of infection or illness.
Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and they gained people's consent before providing personal care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People told us that they were supported by kind, caring and compassionate staff. Each person was treated as an individual and as a result, their care was tailored to meet their needs. Staff respected people and supported them to make choices about their care, support and any individual needs they might have including cultural, religious, and those relating to disability. People told us staff treated them with dignity. People’s personal information was kept securely.
People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred. Care plans were personalised and written in conjunction with the person themselves and others involved in their care. They included information about people’s life histories which enabled staff to get to know people and take an interest in their lives. There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service. Staff were trained in equality and diversity and information was provided to people in formats that were accessible to them.
The service continued to be well managed. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive improvement. Staff felt well-supported and received supervision that gave them an opportunity to share ideas, and exchange information. Effective systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided through a range of internal checks and audits. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to report events that occurred within the service to the CQC and external agencies.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us that they felt safe in their own home and we observed people to be happy and relaxed around the staff that supported them. All staff had completed the provider’s mandatory training. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed. We observed that there was sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people they were supporting. The recruitment practice protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work in their home.
Support plans contained risk assessments to protect people from identified risks and help to keep them safe. They gave information for staff on the identified risk and informed staff on the measures to take to minimise any risks.
People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Records showed that medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when needed.
People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their support. People participated in a range of activities both in their own home and in the community and received the support they needed to help them do this. People were able to choose where they spent their time and what they did.
Staff had good relationships with the people they supported. Complaints were appropriately investigated and action was taken to make improvements to the service when this was found to be necessary. The management team was approachable and had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Staff and people were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.
We spoke with four relatives of people living in the home. They told us that the care that staff provided was very good. One relative said: 'care is excellent. I get informed when needed. Staff are always friendly and helpful'.
This was largely a positive inspection. People said that they were satisfied with the care they received. Relatives we spoke with people said that care was good. We asked the manager to ensure staff were trained to meet the health conditions that people had. The manager sent us information as to how this was to be done. There was one comment about staff being under pressure to meet people's needs in the evening. The manager sent us information as to how people's care needs were being met.
A person told us that staff were all friendly and helpful. 'Staff do everything I ask them to do'.
We spoke with three relatives. They all told us that the care that staff provided was very good. Two relatives said that, at times, there was quite a long time where their relatives had waited for care.
One relative said; 'Staff are very good. However, there are not enough staff on duty.'.
This was largely a positive inspection. People living in the home stated that they were satisfied with the care they were given. Their next of kin were also generally satisfied with the service. The main issues identified were to ensure that people's welfare needs were always met and ensure complaints are always recorded and acted on.