CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sunnydale
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff knew how to report abuse or safety concerns. Risks, staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and accidents were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's mental health, physical health, personal care, social and other needs were assessed. Staff were trained and worked with health professionals to support people's health and care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind, respectful and helpful. They were involved in decisions about their care and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual goals and preferences. People were supported with activities, employment, community access, family contact and information in ways they could understand.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive and welcoming culture. Managers and staff used checks and audits to monitor care, medicines, records, the environment and staff practice.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Sunnydale was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a stable staff team.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 28 January 2020. One inspector spoke with five people and six staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, training records and the home's management checks.
The home was rated Good overall and was also rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, listened to and supported. Inspectors found that risks were managed, medicines were given safely, staff were trained, and people's care was personalised.
The home supports adults who may have mental health conditions, misuse drugs or alcohol, or have a physical disability. It also supports people with rehabilitation and developing independence. Since the previous inspection, the home no longer relied on agency staff, and the home had been redecorated with a new kitchen installed.
Stable staffing
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs and no longer relied on agency staff. Recruitment checks were completed safely.
“Since our previous inspection, the service no longer relied on agency staff and were now fully staffed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff listened to them, respected their privacy and treated them as equals. Staff supported people with compassion and encouraged independence.
“People were supported by a kind and caring staff team.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's goals and broke them into manageable steps. People were supported to build skills and prepare for more independent living.
“People received care and support which was person-centred and met their individual needs.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with mental health teams, social workers, occupational therapists, GPs and district nurses to support people's needs.
“The provider had effective partnership with external professionals.” from the report
People involved in the home
People helped decide on activities, menus and changes to the home. They also took part in cooking, gardening and recording daily notes.
“People who lived at the home had opportunities to be involved in what happened.” from the report
Recording future wishes
minorMost people were younger adults, so end of life care was not expected to be needed soon. Staff recognised that people's preferences should still be recorded because a sudden death could occur.
“However, they recognised because sudden death could occur at any time, they needed to ensure they had people's preferences recorded.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative's specific mental health, physical health or rehabilitation goals?
- 02How do you help people work towards self-administering their medicines safely?
- 03What support is available for someone working towards moving into more independent living?
- 04How are people's wishes about end of life care and what should happen after a sudden death recorded?
- 05How do people choose activities, meals and changes to the home?
This inspection looked at the overall service and all five CQC questions, with the previous Good ratings for each area remaining unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 2020 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staff awareness of one person's legal safeguards needing improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 9 August 2017. They spoke with three people, five staff and the registered manager. They reviewed care and medicine records, watched how staff supported people and checked staffing, training, recruitment and quality records.
Eight people were living at the home, which can support up to 10 people with mental health problems. The home had recently started operating as a rehabilitation service, helping people work towards more independent living.
Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were managed properly and staffing matched people's needs. Staff were trained, asked for consent, supported healthcare and treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.
All five areas were rated Good. The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection in August 2015. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement because staff's understanding of consent and decision-making had improved.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and knew who to speak to if they had concerns. Inspectors found that risks were assessed and monitored.
“People continued to receive care which protected them from avoidable harm and abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built positive relationships with people and respected their privacy, dignity and choices.
“People were cared for by staff whom they had good relationships with.” from the report
Support for independence
People were supported to work towards goals such as budgeting, cooking, cleaning, laundry and moving into their own flats.
“People were involved in their own care and were supported in achieving their goals.” from the report
Improved consent practice
Staff's understanding of consent and best-interest decisions had improved since the previous inspection, leading to a higher Effective rating.
“At this inspection staff understanding had improved and we changed the rating to Good.” from the report
Awareness of legal safeguards
needs fixingOne person had an authorised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard with conditions. Staff followed the care plan but could not tell inspectors that the safeguard was in place, so the manager said this would be raised with them.
“We found that staff knew how to support this person and keep them safe in accordance with their care plan, but they could not tell us this person had a DoL in place.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure all staff know when a person has a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard and understand its conditions?
- 02How will you assess whether the rehabilitation approach and time-limited goals are suitable for my relative?
- 03What goals would my relative work towards, and how often would these be reviewed?
- 04How would you support my relative with medicines while they work towards managing them more independently?
- 05How are people and their families involved in care plan reviews and decisions about moving to more independent living?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality areas, including care, medicines, staffing, records, training and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 September 2017 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 Sunnydale
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 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
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 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.