CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sunningdale House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable recruitment checks, enough staff, safe medicines management and well-managed risks. Infection prevention arrangements and visiting arrangements were also judged satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved audits, oversight and record keeping. Staff understood their roles, and people and relatives said the management was approachable and listened to concerns.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; the focused inspection found improved safety and management, while a separate incident investigation continues.
Inspectors visited on 3 and 15 May 2023. They spoke with five people living in the home, four relatives and staff. They observed the medicines process, looked around the home and checked care plans, staff files, medicines records and other records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable recruitment checks, enough staff, safe medicines management, well-managed risks and good infection control. They also found that people were supported to be independent, involved in their care and treated with dignity and respect.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good because the provider had acted on earlier concerns and was no longer in breach of regulations.
Safe staffing
The home had processes to make sure enough suitably trained staff were on duty. Agency staff received an induction and worked alongside regular staff.
“Enough staff were employed to spend quality time with people to develop skills and promote independence.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff had recent training and checks were made on their practice.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered, and disposed of safely.” from the report
People supported to be independent
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and goals. Staff supported people to take part in activities, go out and maintain their independence.
“The home was busy with activities, people coming and going, and staff on hand to enable people to maintain and improve their independence.” from the report
People listened to
People were involved in planning their care and said their views and feedback were heard. Care plans were reviewed and changed when people's needs changed.
“People told us they were routinely consulted with and that their wishes, plans for their care and feedback about the service were listened to and respected.” from the report
Improved management
The home had introduced more effective audits and checks. Information was reviewed for patterns, and the results were used to improve the service.
“The registered manager had implemented a range of checks and audits with good provider oversight.” from the report
Separate incident investigation
minorThe inspection followed notification of an incident in which a person died. CQC says it is investigating separately, and this report does not assess the circumstances or give a conclusion about what happened.
“The inspection was prompted in part by notification of an incident following which a person using the service died.” from the report
- 01What is the current outcome of CQC's separate investigation into the incident following which a person died?
- 02How do you review medicines risks for each person, including over-the-counter medicines?
- 03How do you make sure regular and agency staff understand each person's current care plan and risks?
- 04What checks do you now complete to make sure care records, incidents and complaints are accurate and acted on?
- 05How will you show that the areas not assessed in this inspection, including Caring, Effective and Responsive, are meeting the person's needs?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection, and the circumstances of the death were not examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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, October 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found recruitment, staffing, cleanliness and management systems needed urgent improvement.
This was a focused inspection after concerns about environmental risks. An unannounced visit took place on 9 August 2021 and a second visit was arranged for 16 August 2021. Inspectors assessed Safe and Well-led.
The home had problems with staff recruitment and staffing levels. Staff did not always have enough time to help people build skills or take part in meaningful activities. Some areas were unclean, and parts of the building needed refurbishment. Medicine records were not always completed according to the home's policy.
Management checks had not reliably found or dealt with problems. People and staff were not consistently asked for their views. The home was meeting some infection control and safeguarding requirements, and people generally spoke positively about staff.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The report found breaches of the rules on recruitment and good governance. The CQC said it would monitor the home and return to check progress.
Positive staff relationships
People were generally comfortable with staff and gave positive feedback about the support they received.
“People were observed to be comfortable with staff and generally spoke positively about the support they provided.” from the report
Infection precautions
Inspectors were assured that visitors were screened, visits were supported and staff used protective equipment safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safeguarding
There were few safeguarding incidents, and staff understood how to report concerns.
“Staff understood how to report concerns of abuse.” from the report
Partnership working
Staff worked with health agencies to support people's needs.
“Staff worked in collaboration with health agencies, to ensure people received the support they required.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousNew staff were not consistently recruited in line with the provider's policy and legal requirements. This was a breach of Regulation 19.
“The provider had not recruited new staff in line with their organisation's policy or legislative requirements.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingStaffing arrangements did not allow enough time for people to develop skills or take part in meaningful activities.
“Staffing levels did not enable staff to have quality time with people to develop skills and engage in meaningful activities.” from the report
Cleaning and environment
needs fixingSome bedrooms and other areas were unclean, and rooms and furnishings had not been deep cleaned. Parts of the home also needed significant refurbishment.
“Some parts of the service were unclean, including bedrooms, and rooms and furnishings were not deep cleaned.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousAudits and checks did not identify or resolve problems quickly enough. This was a breach of Regulation 17.
“The provider's system of audits and checks had not been effective in identifying and responding to the issues found during this inspection.” from the report
People's involvement
needs fixingPeople and staff were not consistently asked for feedback to help develop and improve the service.
“People who used the service and staff were not consistently asked for their feedback about the service to ensure they were included in the development and improvements.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome medicine records did not follow the home's policy, including handwritten entries that were not countersigned.
“Elements of the medicines recording was not in line with the provider's policy including handwritten entries not been counter-signed.” from the report
- 01What checks are now completed before new staff start work, and how do you make sure recruitment meets Regulation 19?
- 02How many staff are on duty at different times, and how do you ensure people get enough support for meaningful activities and independence?
- 03What cleaning and refurbishment work has been completed since the inspection, and how is this checked now?
- 04How are medicine records checked, and is a trained medicines staff member always available on each shift?
- 05How are people and staff now asked for feedback, and how is that feedback used to make changes?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led because of concerns about environmental risks; the other key questions were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 October 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.
Every inspection of Sunningdale House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.