CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sanderling House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines management. They found a lack of recording around thickening powder and no formal audit of accident and incident trends.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support, including training about acquired brain injury and alcohol or substance misuse. People were supported with consent, nutrition, healthcare and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Staff formed strong, meaningful relationships and treated people with kindness and respect. People were supported to make choices, keep their independence and move towards living in their own home where appropriate.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, wishes, goals and communication. Staff provided personalised activities, supported family relationships and responded promptly when people's needs or preferences changed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff showed clear values and worked well with people, relatives and other professionals. Quality checks were in place, although not all actions from one provider audit had been completed.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally caring and responsive support, with some records needing improvement.
Inspectors visited the home on 27 and 28 March 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff, managers and outside professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, training records, complaints and quality checks.
The home provides residential care for up to seven adults with an acquired brain injury. Inspectors found Good care in safety, effectiveness and leadership. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, training and support for health needs were generally well managed.
The home was rated Outstanding overall because caring and responsive support had improved to Outstanding. Staff built strong relationships, respected people's choices and helped them develop independence, maintain relationships and take part in community activities.
There were some recording shortfalls. These included limited recording of thickening powder, a lack of formal accident trend checks and a need for more detailed records about some mental capacity decisions. The manager acted on these points during or after the inspection.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff build close relationships based on trust, understanding and respect. People and relatives spoke very positively about the support.
“Staff and people using the service had developed very caring, strong, meaningful relationships.” from the report
Building independence
The home supported people through moves into supported living and helped with practical arrangements, community links and daily life skills.
“This level of care and innovation enabled the person to regain their independence and feel supported going forward.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, routines, relationships, goals, communication needs and risks. Staff adapted support to each person.
“People had a full needs assessment and a plan of care which contained detailed information about the person.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in varied activities and were supported to keep important family and social relationships.
“People had access to an excellent range of social activities which they enjoyed and people were encouraged to take part in new areas of interest.” from the report
Thickening powder records
needs fixingInspectors found that administration of prescribed thickening powder was not recorded properly. The records were amended during the inspection.
“We found a lack of recording around the administration of a thickening powder.” from the report
Accident monitoring
needs fixingAccidents and incidents were recorded, but there was no formal audit to look for patterns and help prevent them happening again. The manager later provided evidence of planned auditing.
“There was no formal audit to review any themes or emerging trends to help reduce re-occurrence.” from the report
Mental capacity records
minorInspectors asked the manager to record some decisions in more detail after assessing people's capacity. The manager later confirmed that improvements had been made.
“We discussed with the registered manager the need to record in more detail decisions made following an assessment of people's capacity.” from the report
Outstanding audit actions
minorA provider audit found a 90% score, but not all its actions had been completed. Inspectors were assured that measures were being taken to address this.
“Not all actions had been completed however we were assured by the measures being taken by the registered manager and operations manager to ensure compliance.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the administration of thickening powder and check that the records are complete?
- 02How are accidents and incidents audited now, and what changes have been made as a result?
- 03How do you record decisions made for people who may lack mental capacity?
- 04What actions from the provider's 90% quality audit remained outstanding, and have they now been completed?
- 05How would you support my relative to build independence, join community activities or move to supported living if that became suitable?
This was an announced inspection of all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Good, and the caring and responsive ratings improved to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Sanderling House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- June 2018Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 July 2014.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.