CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Susan Day Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, medicines, accidents, infection control and emergency arrangements were managed safely. Staffing was viewed as safe overall, although staff could sometimes appear rushed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff had relevant training and health professionals were contacted appropriately. Special diets and people's health needs were supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were supported to stay independent, maintain relationships and have a say in their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and activities reflected people's interests. Complaints were explained, and the one complaint received had been investigated and managed well.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective leadership, regular audits and a culture focused on person-centred care. The manager and trustees had introduced several improvements since 2016.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Susan Day Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staff could sometimes seem rushed.
This was a planned inspection. One inspector visited on 6 and 7 February 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with people living there, a relative, staff and health professionals. They also reviewed care records, staff files, complaints, accidents, medicines and management checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with dignity and involved in their care. Care plans were detailed, activities were available and health needs were followed up.
There were some points to keep under review. Staff and people said staff could sometimes seem rushed or take longer than expected to help. Recruitment arrangements were being reviewed, and views about the food were mixed.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection on 30 August 2016. The report says staffing, infection control, staff support, resident involvement and management checks had improved since then.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. The home supported independence, visitors and important relationships.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
People have a voice
Residents could suggest changes and were involved in meetings, menus and care reviews. Dignity Champions also helped people raise issues.
“We can make suggestions at the monthly resident meetings.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs and preferences. Activities, daily contact and support from staff were organised around individual wishes.
“People were fully involved in planning their care and the regular care reviews.” from the report
Strong learning and oversight
The manager and trustees reviewed the service regularly and had made improvements to staffing, infection control, training and resident involvement.
“Continuous learning and improving care was pivotal to how the service was run.” from the report
Staff could be rushed
minorPeople and staff felt staffing levels were safe, but said staff could sometimes appear rushed or take longer than expected to provide help.
“People and staff felt the staffing numbers kept people safe but comments included staff sometimes appearing rushed or taking longer than expected to provide assistance.” from the report
Recruitment process under review
minorThe report says recruitment arrangements were being reviewed to make them more robust. Ask the home what changes were made after this inspection.
“The procedure for recruitment was under review so the robustness of the arrangements would be further increased.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorPeople had menu choices and special diets were supported, but opinions about the food were not all positive.
“I think the vegetables are overcooked but the fish is very good and the breakfast is very, very good.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure staff are not rushed at busy times, and how are staffing levels reviewed now?
- 02What changes were made to the recruitment process after it was identified as being under review?
- 03How do residents give feedback about meals, and what changes have been made in response to comments about overcooked vegetables?
- 04How are care plans and reviews kept up to date when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05How can relatives raise a concern, and how will the home keep them informed about the response?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all five ratings were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 March 2019 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 2016
Susan Day Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with minor record-keeping issues to address.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 25 and 30 August 2016. One inspector spoke with 12 people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints, safety checks and quality monitoring.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, well-managed medicines, suitable care plans and staff who understood people's needs and preferences.
People and relatives spoke warmly about the care. Inspectors saw kindness, respect and choice in everyday support. The home had systems for complaints and quality checks, although some safety checks had not always been recorded.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives praised the staff's attitude. Inspectors observed patience, compassion and respect for people's dignity and choices.
“Throughout the day we observed lots of laughter, compassion and kindness being shown to people.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored and administered safely. Some people were supported to manage their own medicines after this had been risk assessed.
“Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines at the time they were prescribed to be given.” from the report
Staff knew people's needs
Staff understood people's care plans, preferred routines and equipment needs. Training, supervision and recruitment checks supported their work.
“People were supported to have their needs met effectively by a staff team who knew their needs, preferences and wishes.” from the report
People had a voice
People were involved in decisions about their care and in changes to the home. Some people also helped with interviewing new staff.
“People, relatives and staff felt valued and believed their views were listened to.” from the report
Some meal concerns
minorSome people felt the quality of meals had declined, although they could not give specific examples. The provider discussed this with people and made changes to choices and preparation.
“Some people shared their views that they felt the quality of meals had gone 'downhill', but were unable to give specific examples of what this meant.” from the report
Some safety checks were not recorded
needs fixingWindow restrictors and bed rails had been checked during room checks, but this was not always written down. The registered manager agreed to include these checks in the audit records.
“These had been checked as part of room checks, but had not always been recorded.” from the report
- 01How was the handover managed when the new manager took over from the manager due to retire in April 2017?
- 02How are checks on window restrictors and bed rails now recorded and audited?
- 03How do you collect and act on people's views about the quality and choice of meals?
- 04Have the planned electronic care plans and records been introduced, and how are they checked for accuracy?
- 05What activities and one-to-one support are currently available for people who spend time in their rooms?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the service and covered all five CQC questions, with ratings given for each. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 October 2016 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 Susan Day Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
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 17 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.