CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sussex House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicine practices, too few staff at times and weak checks on quality and safety.
The unannounced inspection took place on 13 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with people using the service, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
People generally received care and support, but staff were sometimes too busy to respond promptly. Medicine checks and records were not always safe. The home was clean, infection control arrangements were suitable, and care plans and risk assessments were kept up to date.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective was rated Good. This was the home's third consecutive Requires Improvement rating.
Care plans and risk assessments
Care plans were personalised and kept up to date. Staff followed recorded measures to reduce known risks.
“Care plans were up to date, risk assessments were in place and regularly reviewed.” from the report
Staff recruitment and training
Staff had the required recruitment checks and received induction, ongoing training and supervision.
“Staff had mandatory checks to ensure they were suitable to work at the service.” from the report
Infection control and visiting
Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, and people could receive visits from family and friends under the guidance in place.
“People were supported to receive visits from friends and family in line with guidance in place at the time.” from the report
Supporting choice
The home supported people to make their own decisions and used best-interest processes when people could not decide for themselves.
“Staff empowered people to make their own decisions about their care and support.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousMedicine quantities did not always match the records. There were gaps in instructions, temperature records and controlled drug balance checks.
“We found no evidence people had been harmed, however, people were at increased risk as the provider had failed to ensure the proper and safe management of medicines.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousStaff were very busy and some people waited a long time for support. People also spent regular periods without staff engagement.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed, however, the provider had failed to ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and skilled, competent staff to meet the needs of people.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits did not reliably identify or correct problems with medicines, staffing and records.
“Systems designed to monitor the safety and quality of the service and take action to mitigate risk, were not robust.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure controlled drug balances and all medicine records are checked correctly?
- 02How do you now make sure staff have clear instructions for as-needed and time-specific medicines?
- 03How many staff are deployed on each shift, and how do you respond when people need more support?
- 04What changes have been made to the quality audits so they identify medicine, staffing and documentation problems?
- 05What progress has been made against the action plan requested by the CQC?
The inspection was prompted by a review of information, included infection prevention and control, and the report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 October 2022 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, July 2019
Sussex House Care Home rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but safety checks and management systems were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 and 23 May 2019. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files, training information and management records.
The home was rated Good for effective, caring and responsive care. People were treated with respect, supported to make choices, and had care plans that reflected their needs and preferences. Staff supported people with food, healthcare, activities and complaints.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for safe and well-led care. Safeguarding procedures were not always followed, some safety checks were incomplete or delayed, and there were recording errors for medicines and best-interest decisions. The provider had also failed to notify the CQC about some incidents.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement, as it had been at the previous inspection. The responsive rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The home had been rated Requires Improvement for the last two consecutive inspections.
Kind and respectful care
Staff had good relationships with people and supported their dignity, privacy, independence and choices.
“Staff had developed good relationships with people and were friendly and caring towards them.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans had improved and included people's abilities, health needs, likes, dislikes and preferred routines.
“People's care plans contained information about their abilities, health needs, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Support with health and food
People were supported to eat well and access healthcare when needed. Their nutritional and health needs were monitored.
“People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People were supported to take part in meaningful social and leisure activities and were involved in decisions about their care.
“People were supported to engage in social and leisure interests meaningful to them.” from the report
More positive culture
People and staff described the manager as approachable. Inspectors found improved team morale and a more open culture.
“There was a positive team morale and staff told us the culture was more positive, open and honest.” from the report
Safeguarding procedures
seriousLow-level safeguarding concerns had not always been reported to the local authority correctly. Management did not always show a good understanding of local safeguarding procedures.
“Procedures for reporting low level safeguarding concerns to the local authority had not always been followed.” from the report
Incomplete safety checks
seriousWater temperature checks were carried out on only a selection of taps, and the annual gas safety check was delayed.
“Water temperature checks were only carried out on a selection of taps; assurances could not be made that others were safe.” from the report
Evening staffing
needs fixingThe home needed an additional staff member in the evening to ensure people's needs could be met safely. Recruitment was under way at the time.
“However, an additional member of staff was required in the evening to ensure people's needs could be met safely.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingPeople received their medicines as prescribed, but some medicine records contained errors. These were addressed during the inspection.
“There were some recording errors in the management of medicines.” from the report
Management records and notifications
seriousThe provider did not notify the CQC about some incidents as required by law. Some records of best-interest decisions were also incomplete.
“The provider had failed to notify us of some notifiable incidents.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure all safeguarding concerns are reported to the local authority correctly?
- 02Have the water temperature checks and annual gas safety checks been brought fully up to date, and how are they monitored now?
- 03Has the additional evening staff member been recruited, and how do you check that evening staffing is safe?
- 04What safeguards are now in place to prevent medicine recording errors?
- 05How do you ensure all CQC notifications and best-interest decision records are completed correctly?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating remained Requires Improvement, with Responsive improving from Requires Improvement to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 July 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.
Every inspection of Sussex House Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 April 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
12 live-in carers within about an hour of North East Lincolnshire
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 £1,350 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.