CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sherrington House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff were safely recruited and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed safely, although unlocked bathroom cabinets were identified as a potential risk and were secured promptly.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had access to healthcare and staff made appropriate referrals when needs changed. Staff had suitable training and people were supported with nutrition, consent and daily choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were detailed and personalised. Staff responded to changes in people's health, supported activities and relationships, and respected people's choices about taking part.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible leadership, an open culture and quality checks that supported improvement. Some inconsistent bedding was identified, then addressed through replacement, staff training and daily checks.
What inspectors found, May 2020
Sherrington House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with minor issues about bathroom cabinets and bedding dealt with promptly.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 March 2020. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings, personalised care and good access to healthcare.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and encouraged activities and relationships. The management team had systems to monitor quality and respond to problems.
Inspectors identified unlocked bathroom cabinets as a potential risk. They also found some bedding was not of a consistent quality. The manager acted promptly to address both issues.
Kind and respectful care
People were consistently treated warmly and staff knew their needs, preferences and communication styles. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and promoting independence.
“People were consistently treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
The home had enough suitably recruited staff. Medicines were administered by trained staff, with competency checks and regular audits.
“Effective systems and processes were in place to make sure people received their medicines as they had been prescribed with clear records kept.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records described people's individual needs and preferences. Staff responded quickly when people's health changed and involved relatives where appropriate.
“People's care records were detailed in providing important information to guide staff on how to meet their individual care needs.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered activities and one-to-one support, including for people living with dementia. Staff also encouraged contact with relatives and respected people who chose not to join activities.
“A programme of activities took place which encouraged and enabled people to pursue their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. People, relatives and staff said they could raise concerns, and audits were used to identify and act on improvements.
“There was a positive and open culture where staff felt able to speak to the registered manager if they needed guidance and support.” from the report
Inconsistent bedding quality
minorInspectors found inconsistencies in the quality of bedding for some people. Bedding was replaced where needed, housekeeping staff received further training and daily checks were introduced.
“However, we fed back to the registered manager inconsistencies with the quality of the bedding for some people.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that communal bathroom cabinets remain locked and safe?
- 02What did the bedding audit find, and how often are bedding and room standards checked now?
- 03How do you make sure staff recognise and respond quickly when a person's health changes?
- 04What activities are available for people living with dementia, including those who prefer one-to-one support or stay in their rooms?
- 05How are relatives involved in care reviews, complaints and decisions about changing needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the previous Good ratings were all retained. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 May 2020 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.
What inspectors found, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas remaining Good.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 30 and 31 August 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the registered manager. They also observed care and reviewed care files, staff records, medicines records and quality checks.
People told inspectors they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough trained staff, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines systems. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare and decisions about their care.
Inspectors saw respectful and caring interactions. Care plans included people's preferences and life histories, and complaints were handled effectively. The home was rated Good in all five areas, the same as at the previous inspection in February 2015.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough skilled staff to meet people's needs. Risks were assessed and managed without unnecessarily limiting people's independence.
“This meant there were suitable numbers of skilled staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff had regular training and checks of their competence.
“Medicines were safely managed. Staff had undergone regular training with their competencies checked.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff listened to people, respected their privacy and supported their independence. Relatives were positive about how staff treated their family members.
“People's right to privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, interests and life histories. This helped staff provide activities and support that people enjoyed.
“The service ensured that people's care records were personalised to include information about them, such as their hobbies, interests, preferences and life history.” from the report
Open management
The registered manager was visible and approachable. Audits were used to identify problems and records showed that action was taken promptly.
“Where shortfalls were identified, records demonstrated that these were acted upon promptly.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular needs if they are living with dementia or cannot clearly explain their wishes?
- 02How do you review staffing levels when residents' needs change?
- 03How would you manage and review my relative's medicines, including checking staff competence?
- 04How are changes to care plans agreed with residents and their relatives?
- 05What activities would match my relative's interests, preferences and life history?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 September 2017 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 Sherrington House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 February 2011.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.