CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sunkist Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and plans to manage risks, including changing behaviour and mental health needs. Medicines were administered by trained staff and checked through audits and reviews.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and regularly updated. Staff had suitable training and support, and people received help with food, healthcare, independence and daily choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's personalities and preferences, involved them in care decisions and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and adjusted to people's changing moods, mental health and communication needs. People were supported with activities, education, voluntary work and community involvement.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong leadership, an open culture and effective systems for checking quality and safety. People, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals said the home was well managed.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Sunkist Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 23 May 2019. The inspection team spoke with 11 people living in the home, two relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines information, accidents, complaints and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff understood their needs, and people were involved in decisions about their care. People were supported to be independent and to take part in community activities.
The home met the legal requirements checked during this inspection. The Effective rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection because bathroom renovations and other improvements had been completed.
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs, preferences, moods, risks and goals. Staff knew people well and updated plans when needs changed.
“People had personalised care plans which contained information about their support needs, how to minimise any risks, and goals they were working towards in order to become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and healthcare professionals spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw patient, friendly and respectful interactions.
“All interactions we saw were respectful, patient and kind.” from the report
Independence and community life
People could come and go freely and were supported to take part in education, voluntary work, activities and community groups.
“People were free to come and go as they pleased and encouraged to become active members in their local community.” from the report
Safe support
The home assessed risks, had enough staff and used trained staff to administer medicines. It acted promptly when people's health or safety changed.
“People were protected from risks associated with their care needs.” from the report
Improved environment
The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement after bathroom renovations. Inspectors found the home clean, welcoming and decorated to a high standard.
“Sunkist Lodge was decorated to a high standard and was clean and welcoming.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative if their mood or mental health changed?
- 02How would you involve my relative in reviewing their care plan and risk assessments?
- 03What activities, education, voluntary work or community groups could my relative take part in?
- 04How would you support my relative to manage their medicines safely and become more independent?
- 05How do you involve relatives and respond to concerns or complaints?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with all ratings assessed during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 2019 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, December 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but effectiveness required improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 and 6 October 2016. Inspectors observed care, spoke with seven people, staff and the manager, and checked care records, medicines, staff records, complaints and safety records.
People said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, detailed risk assessments and suitable recruitment checks. Staff were kind, respected privacy and knew people well.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Effective was rated Requires Improvement because parts of the building needed repair or redecoration, and some staff needed further mental health and practical de-escalation training.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and saw medicines being given safely by trained staff. Risks were clearly assessed and reviewed.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff and the service followed safe recruitment practices.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their choices, privacy and independence. People were encouraged to lead their own care and daily lives.
“People were supported by kind, friendly and respectful staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's mental and physical health needs, preferences, goals and support arrangements. Staff shared changes in people's needs with the team.
“People received personalised care from staff.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. The home used a range of audits covering areas such as medicines, care plans, safety and complaints.
“A range of audit processes were in place to measure the overall quality of the service provided to people.” from the report
Condition of the building
needs fixingSome bedrooms and shared areas were tired and needed redecoration. A downstairs toilet had worn flooring and an offensive smell at the time of inspection.
“Flooring required replacing in a downstairs toilet. There was an offensive odour in the toilet which had not been addressed.” from the report
Further staff training
needs fixingNot all staff had completed mental health training. Inspectors also discussed the need for practical training to help staff manage situations involving challenging behaviour safely.
“Some staff but not all had attended mental health training of various levels due to the needs of the people living at the home” from the report
Information about medicines
minorPeople told inspectors they had not been given information about medicine side effects. This was raised with the manager.
“However, people told us they had not been given information about the side effects of their medicines” from the report
Involvement in care plans
minorAlthough care plans were reviewed monthly, people gave mixed answers about whether they had seen or been involved in their own care plans.
“When we spoke with people about their care plans we received a mixed response as to how involved they were with their actual care plan.” from the report
- 01Have all the planned redecoration and maintenance works been completed, including the areas that were due to be finished by the end of March 2017?
- 02What mental health training have staff completed since the inspection?
- 03Have staff received practical de-escalation training for situations involving challenging behaviour?
- 04How are people given information about the side effects of their medicines?
- 05How are people supported to read, understand and take part in reviewing their care plans?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 2016 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 Sunkist Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 January 2013.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.