CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 17 Shakespeare Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine administration, suitable risk assessments and safeguarding training. Two medicines for a former resident were still in the medicines trolley and the manager said they would arrange safe disposal.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in and reviewed afterwards. Staff had relevant training and supervision, and people received support with food, healthcare and lawful consent.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with patience, kindness, dignity and respect. People were encouraged to make choices and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans gave detailed information about people's preferences, communication and support needs. People were supported with activities, relationships and complaints, although end-of-life wishes were not included in care plans.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were described as accessible and staff felt supported. Audits covered areas such as care plans, medicines, fire safety and incidents, and inspectors found these helped drive improvement.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Sutton Court Associates Limited - 17 Shakespeare Road rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a small medicines oversight and no end-of-life wishes recorded.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 September 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, staff and managers, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment records and management checks.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly and involved in decisions about their care, meals, activities and daily lives. Staff understood people's needs and supported their independence.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as the previous inspection published in January 2017.
People have a say
People were involved in decisions about their care, meals, rooms and activities. Their views were collected and acted on.
“People were involved in all aspects of the service and their views were listened to and acted upon.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw patient and friendly support. Staff knew people well and provided care in a personal way.
“Positive, caring and compassionate relationships had been developed between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's histories, preferences, interests and support needs. Staff used this information to help people achieve their goals.
“Care plans were written in a person-centred way and contained detailed information about people, their preferences, and how they wished to be supported.” from the report
Activities and independence
People chose how to spend their time and were supported with activities in the home and community. Staff helped people become more independent.
“People chose how they spent their time and were involved in a variety of activities outside of the service.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used regular checks to monitor care, medicines, safety and incidents. Inspectors found these checks were effective in supporting improvement.
“A range of audits was effective in measuring and monitoring all aspects of the service to drive improvement.” from the report
Old medicines remained on site
needs fixingTwo medicines for a person who had moved away several months earlier were still in the medicines trolley. The manager accepted this was an oversight and said they would be disposed of safely.
“However, we saw two medicines in the trolley which were for a person who had moved out of the service several months before.” from the report
End-of-life wishes not recorded
minorCare plans did not contain specific information about people's end-of-life wishes. No one was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection, and managers said this would be discussed when people felt ready.
“Care plans did not include specific information about people's end of life wishes.” from the report
- 01What action was taken to return or safely dispose of the two medicines left for a former resident?
- 02How do you now record and review each person's end-of-life wishes?
- 03What changes were made as part of the care-plan revamp, and how do staff access the updated information?
- 04Which Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications were still being processed, and how were people supported while waiting?
- 05How will you make sure each person's preferred activities and community access continue if their needs change?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, as well as the premises and care provided; all ratings were reviewed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 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, January 2017
Sutton Court Associates Limited - 17 Shakespeare Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with mixed views about the food.
Inspectors visited on 21 October and 20 December 2016. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum conditions. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems and suitable risk assessments that supported people's independence. People were asked for consent and had access to healthcare.
Inspectors found caring staff who knew people well. Support plans reflected people's needs and preferences, and people were involved in decisions about their care and activities. The home had systems for complaints, feedback and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the service met the relevant standards at that time, although one person described the food as only passable.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff and saw that staffing was adjusted to fit people's routines and plans, including later support for social events.
“There were sufficient staff to ensure that people were safe and supported according to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Choice and independence
People could make choices about daily life and were supported to build practical skills such as cooking, shopping, laundry and budgeting.
“By promoting peoples' independence staff were ensuring that people gained and retained important life skills, felt empowered and had a good sense of self-worth.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and inspectors saw a relaxed, friendly atmosphere. People were treated with respect and their privacy was maintained.
“There was a relaxed, homely and welcoming atmosphere within the home.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorMost people were happy with the food and could choose what and when to eat. However, one person said the food was only passable, so ask how preferences and dissatisfaction are handled.
“There was varied feedback with regard to the food. Most people were happy with the food provided. One person told us, "I like the food here, X is a good cook". Whilst another person, when asked about the food told us, "It's passable".” from the report
- 01How do you respond when someone is unhappy with the food, and how are their preferences recorded?
- 02How do you adjust staffing when residents want to get up later or attend evening events?
- 03Which residents can manage their own medicines, and how are their risk assessments and monitoring kept up to date?
- 04How are support plans reviewed with residents and their relatives, and how quickly are changes made?
- 05What is the current position on the keypad door lock and any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the previous inspection in January 2014 found no areas of concern. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 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 17 Shakespeare Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 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.