CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sunlight House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate medicines systems and good management of risks. Infection control arrangements were also found to be effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible and approachable management, effective checks and a positive culture. Some actions from meetings were not always followed up.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, with some meeting actions not always followed up.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 December 2022. One inspector spoke with the manager, care workers, residents and relatives. They reviewed care plans, risk records, staff recruitment files and management checks.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities and mild mental health needs. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable infection control and good management of risks. People had choice and were supported to take part in activities in the local community.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while Well-led remained Good. Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Choice and independence
People were supported to control their daily lives, personalise their rooms and pursue interests in the community.
“The service supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence.” from the report
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support for activities and visits.
“The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were securely stored and records of administration were completed correctly and on time.
“Staff completed these in a timely manner, and we found these to be completed correctly.” from the report
Consistent care
Low staff turnover meant people were supported by staff who knew them well.
“Staff turnover was very low, which supported people to receive consistent care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Approachable management
Inspectors found managers visible, involved and open to the views of people, relatives, staff and professionals.
“Management were visible in the service, approachable and took a genuine interest in what people, staff, family, advocates and other professionals had to say.” from the report
Meeting actions
needs fixingSome actions from residents' and staff meetings were not consistently followed up at later meetings. Inspectors recommended documenting follow-up actions so they could be tracked.
“Notwithstanding the above, we found some instances where actions form resident and staff meetings were not always followed up at subsequent meetings.” from the report
Rating not displayed
minorThe home's most recent CQC rating was not displayed when inspectors visited. The manager said it would be printed and put on the noticeboard.
“We noted that the providers most recent CQC inspection report and rating was not on display in the home.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and track actions agreed at residents' and staff meetings?
- 02How many staff will be available to provide one-to-one support for my relative's activities and community visits?
- 03How will you support my relative to make choices and take positive risks safely?
- 04How do you make sure medicines are given on time and recorded correctly?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 2023 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection-control and visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention, infection control and visiting arrangements. They also asked about staffing pressures. The inspection was announced with 24 hours’ notice.
Inspectors found good practice. Visitors were screened, asked to take a lateral flow test and supported to wear face coverings. Visits were arranged to reduce contact with residents and staff. The home also supported video calls, telephone contact and visits outside the home.
Inspectors were assured about the use of protective equipment, testing, ventilation, cleaning, admissions and plans for managing infections. Staff had infection-control training, and audits were carried out.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall rating or a rating for the five areas of care. It was a limited check of infection-control arrangements rather than a full inspection.
Controlled visiting
Visits were arranged through the front entrance, with screening, testing and face coverings. Visitors had limited contact with residents and staff.
“Visitors were required to undertake a lateral flow test prior to attending and provide the home with a negative result.” from the report
Support for family contact
The home supported other ways for residents to stay in touch with family and friends, including video calls, telephone calls and visits outside the home.
“The provider supported alternative forms of maintaining social contact for friends and family, for example, keeping in touch using video calls, visiting outside of the home and using a telephone to communicate.” from the report
Infection-control oversight
The registered manager monitored infection control. Staff had training and refresher training, and audits were used to check arrangements.
“The registered manager had oversight of IPC at the home and audits were undertaken to ensure compliance with IPC responsibilities.” from the report
Activities and social contact
Residents continued to attend college, day centres and other activities, with checks for COVID-19 symptoms when they returned.
“The residents at the home took part in planned activities, including attendance at college for cookery, art and drama classes, day centres and Mencap” from the report
Further development identified
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not say that this led to a breach or a rating downgrade.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.” from the report
- 01What are the current rules for booking visits, visitor testing and face coverings?
- 02How do you manage staffing pressures if staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 03How are residents monitored and tested after returning from family visits or activities?
- 04Has planning permission been granted for the activity building mentioned in the report?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2022 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 Sunlight House
8 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 2010.
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 Merton
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 £1,230 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at 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.