CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sunnycroft Residential Care Home
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks of harm. Staffing levels, medicines, infection control, emergency planning and premises safety were all found to be well managed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable food, healthcare and staff support. Staff understood consent and the Mental Capacity Act, although one person's legal authority documents needed correcting.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Staff were exceptionally kind and respectful. Inspectors saw people being listened to, supported with dignity and encouraged to maintain independence and choice.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care plans were detailed, regularly reviewed and shaped around people's histories and wishes. Activities were varied and meaningful, and staff adapted support as people's needs changed.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- The home had strong leadership, an open culture and robust systems for checking safety and quality. People, relatives and staff were involved in improving the home.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Sunnycroft Residential Care Home was rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring, responsive and well-led support, with safe and effective care rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 9 April 2018. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care, reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Caring, Responsive and Well-led were Outstanding. Safe and Effective were Good. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and dignity, supported to make choices, and given activities suited to their interests.
Inspectors found strong leadership and systems for checking quality and learning from incidents. They also found enough staff, safe medicines management, good food and clean premises. A few small issues were raised and addressed or being addressed.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were consistently compassionate. They protected people's privacy and dignity, listened to them and supported their choices.
“Staff were exceptionally kind and caring to people and their relatives who told us how much they valued and appreciated the care they were given” from the report
Meaningful activities
Activities reflected people's interests, backgrounds and life histories. People were involved in preparing activities and were supported to remain active and independent.
“Staff went 'over and above' to involve people in deciding on, preparing for and taking part in exciting and innovative activities and events to enjoy.” from the report
Strong leadership
The provider and manager had a clear person-centred approach. Staff felt valued, supported and involved in the running of the home.
“There was an extremely open, relaxed and inclusive culture within the home and staff felt supported by the registered manager and deputy manager.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans included people's health needs, preferences and personal histories. They were reviewed regularly and updated when needs changed.
“People's care plans contained a high level of detail and were extremely person centred.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were administered by trained staff and records were complete. Inspectors also found enough staff to meet people's needs and respond promptly.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
More detailed legionella assessment
minorThe home had basic legionella guidance and safety checks, but inspectors asked for a more robust risk assessment. This was in progress after the inspection.
“Following a discussion with the registered manager, they obtained agreement from the provider to commission a more robust legionella risk assessment” from the report
Incomplete employment history detail
minorOne application form recorded only the year of previous employment. The home was asked to include the month and year, and sent an amended form after the inspection.
“We noted on one application form that only the year of employment had been given.” from the report
Legal authority document
needs fixingOne person's documents did not give their relative the correct authority to make health and welfare decisions. The manager acted to address this immediately.
“We noted one person's documents did not give their relative the relevant authority to make decisions about their health and welfare.” from the report
- 01Has the more robust legionella risk assessment now been completed, and what actions did it identify?
- 02How do you check that each person's legal authority and best-interest documents are correct and up to date?
- 03How are care plans updated when a person's health, diet, mobility or communication needs change?
- 04How do you make sure activities remain meaningful for people who prefer quieter activities or have dementia?
- 05How do you monitor staffing levels at different times of day and during emergencies?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous inspection in January 2016 found no concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Sunnycroft Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- June 2018Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
Read what inspectors found at Sunnycroft Residential Care Home →
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.