CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Sunflower House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were given safely, staff were safely recruited and there were enough staff to meet assessed needs. Infection control arrangements were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training and supervision to support people's complex needs. People were supported with their health, nutrition, hydration and access to health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and inspectors observed kind, patient and positive interactions. People and relatives were involved in care decisions where possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans gave detailed guidance about each person's needs and preferences. Communication passports, communication aids and activity planners were used where needed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits and acted on issues found. Relatives and staff described communication with managers as good, and the home worked with other professionals.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with activities and respite affected by COVID-19.
This was a planned inspection on 17 August 2021. One inspector visited the home, spoke with one person, five staff members and three relatives, and contacted other professionals. Records, medicines, staff recruitment and management systems were also checked.
The home provided personal and nursing care for five young adults with a learning disability or autism and complex health needs. Inspectors found that people were safe, their medicines were given as prescribed, and there were enough trained staff. The home was clean and COVID-19 guidance was being followed.
Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and supported their privacy, dignity, independence, health and communication needs. Relatives said communication with the home was good and that they were involved in care planning.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safe had improved from Required improvement at the previous inspection, while the other four ratings remained Good.
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about each person's needs, preferences and behaviour. They were reviewed regularly and relatives were involved.
“Person centred care plans were in place and provided detailed information and guidance on how staff were to meet each person's care and support needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff understood how to protect people's dignity and encourage independence.
“We observed kind, patient and positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Support for complex health needs
Staff were trained to support people's individual health needs. The home worked with health and social care professionals.
“Staff completed a range of training to meet people's individual complex needs.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff, completed recruitment checks and medicines training. People received medicines as prescribed.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's identified needs.” from the report
Good communication
Relatives said they could discuss care and were kept informed. Staff and professionals also described communication as good.
“Relatives were complimentary about the communication with EAM House and said they were involved in discussing and agreeing their relatives support needs.” from the report
Respite service paused
minorShort-break care was not being offered during the inspection because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The report said people's needs would be reviewed when it restarted.
“Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the respite service was not being offered at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Activities were reduced
minorActivities had moved mainly into the home or nearby outdoor areas during the pandemic. Wider activities such as public transport, social groups and meals out had not yet resumed.
“Activity routines had changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with more activities being within the home or local outdoor areas.” from the report
- 01Is respite care available now, and how will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed before it starts?
- 02What activities and community outings are currently available, including public transport, social groups and meals out?
- 03How will you support my relative's specific communication needs, and which communication aids or passports will be used?
- 04How will you manage my relative's complex health needs, including signs that their health may be deteriorating?
- 05How often will my relative's care plan and positive behaviour support plan be reviewed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; the Safe rating improved from Required improvement, while the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 September 2021 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, October 2018
EAM House was rated Good overall, but inspectors found recruitment risk checks were not consistently clear and rated safety Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited on 20, 22 and 25 June 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people using the home, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, incidents, maintenance and infection control records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors found safer medicines systems, better staff training and competency checks, detailed care plans, suitable support for health needs and positive relationships between staff and people.
Safety was still rated Requires Improvement because a newly recruited staff member's risk assessment did not clearly explain the risks or the action taken to control them. The other four areas were rated Good: Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the home generally provided good care, but the safety shortfall needed attention. Earlier breaches and enforcement action from the October 2017 inspection were found to have been addressed in the areas checked.
Improved staff competence
Staff received induction, training and regular checks of their ability to carry out specific care tasks. This was a significant improvement from the previous inspection.
“All staff were reassessed as competent to provide effective care and support to that person.” from the report
Medicines handled safely
Medicines were secured, temperatures were checked and the two medication records examined were completed correctly.
“We concluded people received their medicines safely because the provider had adequate systems in place to ensure this took place.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in an unhurried way. Inspectors saw staff asking permission and protecting people's privacy.
“We observed positive interactions between people and staff. The atmosphere at the service was friendly and relaxed.” from the report
Detailed personal care planning
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, interests and communication needs. They also gave staff guidance about changes in health and behaviour.
“Care plans were detailed and person-centred.” from the report
Activities and community access
People could choose from activities including music, gardening, arts and crafts, sensory therapy and trips into the community.
“There were a wide range of activities and entertainment available for people.” from the report
Recruitment risk assessment was unclear
seriousA file for one newly recruited staff member did not clearly set out the risks linked to a conviction or the steps taken to reduce those risks. Inspectors were therefore not fully assured that recruitment safeguards were embedded.
“we were not completely assured that appropriate measures were fully embedded to ensure people were safeguarded.” from the report
Informal concerns were not recorded fully
needs fixingConcerns raised through the annual survey had been resolved, but were not initially included in the formal complaints records. The manager updated the records during the inspection.
“concerns raised in the annual survey though resolved had not been documented here.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the risks linked to a new staff member's background, and who checks that the risk assessment is clear and complete?
- 02What checks show that recruitment safeguards are now fully embedded?
- 03How do staff recognise when a person's health is deteriorating, and what action do they take?
- 04How are informal concerns from surveys or conversations recorded, investigated and followed up?
- 05How was the move from the existing registered manager to the newly appointed care manager managed and monitored?
This was an inspection of the overall service and all five key questions, including care, accommodation and nursing or personal care; the first day was unannounced. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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 Sunflower House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 July 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Trafford
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 £1,260 a week. 91 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the 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.