CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sunridge Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Medicines, safeguarding, risk assessments, equipment checks and recruitment were generally managed safely. Inspectors recommended better recording of loose medicines when people are admitted, and some people reported occasional delays with call bells.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission. Staff received induction, training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink, healthcare and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were caring. Inspectors saw polite interactions, respect for privacy and dignity, support for independence, and help for people to follow their faith.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed when needs changed. People could take part in activities, communicate their choices, raise complaints and record their end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive and open culture, clear management arrangements and systems for checking quality and learning from incidents. People, relatives and staff were involved through meetings and feedback.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor recording and call-bell issues.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 September 2023. One inspector and one Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines, safeguarding, risk management, staffing, training, nutrition and healthcare support were generally handled well.
There were some areas to improve. Recording of loose medicines for new admissions could have been better. Some people said call bells were occasionally answered slowly, and the home had identified a carpet and privacy curtain needing attention. The rating means the home was meeting the required standards overall, but it was not judged perfect.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, life history and interests. Staff were updated about changes and supported people in ways they liked.
“People's needs and preferences were recorded in electronic care plans. These reflected people's individual needs making them person-centred.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff interact politely and respect privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were well treated and supported by staff. We observed staff working in a professional way, interacting politely with people and relatives.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Medicines records and audits were generally in order. Staff had training and regular competency checks, and controlled medicines were stored correctly.
“Medicine Administration Record (MAR) sheets were completed appropriately. MARs contained information about people's medicines, dosages and when people should take them.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People could choose from activities and inspectors saw people taking part in quizzes, artwork and table tennis. One-to-one support was also provided.
“We observed people taking part in activities, playing table tennis with staff and taking part in quizzes and artwork.” from the report
Improved safety rating
The Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Earlier problems with some medicines documentation had been addressed.
“At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good.” from the report
Loose medicines records
needs fixingInspectors said records for newly admitted people who arrived with loose medicines could have been better. The manager acted immediately and introduced a template.
“We found information to record newly admitted people with loose medicines could have been better recorded.” from the report
Occasional call-bell delays
needs fixingSome people said call bells were sometimes answered slowly. The home said it was addressing problems with the call-bell system and staff handheld devices.
“One person told us, "Mostly they respond quickly. Occasionally it takes a long time.” from the report
Premises repairs
minorInspectors identified a carpet and a privacy curtain that needed attention. The home had an action plan for these issues.
“The premises were decorated to a good standard, though there were some issues requiring attention, such as a carpet and a privacy curtain.” from the report
- 01How do you now record loose medicines when a new person is admitted, and how is this checked?
- 02What changes have been made to the call-bell system and handheld devices, and what are the current response times?
- 03Have the carpet and privacy curtain identified by inspectors been repaired or replaced?
- 04How are people's faith, dietary needs and cultural preferences reflected in their daily care?
- 05How are relatives involved when care plans or end-of-life wishes are reviewed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises, and the previous ratings were reviewed for comparison. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 November 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.
Every inspection of Sunridge Court
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 2021.
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 Barnet
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 £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on life.”
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.