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, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
We inspected the home on the 5 August 2014 and the visit was unannounced. Our last inspection took place on 29 November 2013 and, at that time; we found the service was meeting the regulations. During the visit, we spoke with 17 people living at the home, seven relatives, nine members of staff, the registered manager and the provider.
The home had a registered manager who had been registered since November 2013. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law, as does the provider.
Sunningdale Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 35 people who require nursing or personal care. Care is provided on two floors in singly occupied rooms and linked by a passenger lift. There are well appointed communal areas for dining and relaxation. There is also a small patio area to the rear and a small courtyard to the front of the home for people to use. Car parking is available. On the day of inspection 29 people were living in the home with 28 people living with Dementia.
Some people living in the home had complex needs and had difficulties with verbal communication. The staff had developed different communication methods in accordance with people’s needs and preferences. This approach reduced people’s levels of anxiety and stress.
People told us they felt safe in the home and we saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm.
The home had policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
We found people were cared for, or supported by, sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people.
Suitable arrangements were in place and people were provided with a choice of suitable healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met.
People’s physical health was monitored. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals were made.
People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The care plans contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. Care and support was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and staff knew people well. The support plans included risk assessments. Staff had good relationships with the people living at the home and the atmosphere was happy and relaxed.
We observed interactions between staff and people living in the home and staff were kind and respectful to people when they were supporting them. Staff were aware of the values of the service and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People were supported to attend meetings where they could express their views about the home.
A range of activities were provided both in-house and in the community. People were able to choose where they spent their time for example in a quiet lounge, outside or in a busier lounge area. We saw people were involved and consulted about all aspects of the service including what improvements they would like to see and suggestions for activities. Staff told us people were encouraged to maintain contact with friends and family.
The manager investigated and responded to people’s complaints, according to the provider’s complaints procedure. People we spoke with did not raise any complaints or concerns about living at the home.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager and provider. We also saw future plans for the continual improvement of the home which included a redesign of the audit process. This meant people were benefiting from a service that was continually looking how it could provide better care for people. Staff were supported to challenge when they felt there could be improvements and there was an open and honest culture in the home.