CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sutton Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. They identified issues with pharmacy guidance for some specifically timed medicines, but the management team acted immediately and there was no identified negative impact.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and care was supported by appropriate training, diets, adaptations and access to healthcare. Some staff were overdue refresher training, and the provider had taken action to address this.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to maintain privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was highly personalised to people's interests, beliefs, communication needs and goals. People were supported with activities, trips, relationships, rehabilitation and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive and caring culture. Managers used audits, feedback and action plans to improve care and worked positively with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding personalised support, while inspectors found a medicines guidance issue that was acted on immediately.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 6 and 7 June 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also looked at care records, medicines, staff training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly, supported to make choices and helped to access healthcare, activities and their local community.
The inspection was prompted partly by a serious injury incident and concerns about falls, infection control and pressure care. The report says it did not examine the circumstances of that incident, but inspectors found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from those concerns. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 5 June 2019.
Personalised care
Inspectors found that care plans reflected people's likes, dislikes, goals and personal histories. Staff adapted support as people's needs changed.
“The service was exceptionally person-centred and responsive to people's individual needs.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to continue hobbies, join activities, go on trips and take part in daily life. Short-term residents were supported with mobility and rehabilitation goals.
“People were encouraged to do as much as they could for themselves and to participate in the daily life of the home as much as they wanted to.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors observed relaxed, thoughtful interactions and support that respected privacy and dignity.
“We saw lots of kind and thoughtful interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Listening to feedback
People, relatives and staff were asked for their views. The home showed what it had changed in response and dealt with complaints appropriately.
“Any feedback from people, relatives or staff was acted on.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on the shifts reviewed and saw people receiving support when they needed reassurance, care or help to join activities.
“People, relatives, and staff felt there were enough staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Timed medicines guidance
needs fixingInspectors found some problems with guidance from the pharmacy about medicines that had to be given at specific times. The management team acted immediately, and inspectors found no negative impact on people.
“However, we identified some issues with the guidance the service was getting from their pharmacy regarding some specifically timed medicines.” from the report
Overdue refresher training
minorAn audit found that some staff were overdue for refresher training in several areas. The provider had started action to bring training up to date.
“They identified there were several areas where some staff were overdue for refresher training and had taken action to address this.” from the report
- 01What action was taken to correct the pharmacy guidance for specifically timed medicines?
- 02Is all training now up to date for staff who support my relative's needs?
- 03How will you assess and review my relative's risks, including falls, skin care and infection?
- 04Which activities, trips or hobbies could my relative take part in, and what one-to-one support is available?
- 05How will my family be involved in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality questions, the premises, care provided and infection control; it did not examine the circumstances of the serious injury incident that prompted part of the inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 July 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.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 controls but gaps in risk assessments, cleaning records and outbreak planning.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 23 February 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people.
Inspectors found that visitors were screened, testing was available and staff used masks and gloves correctly. The home had arrangements for safe visiting and admissions.
There were some shortfalls. Risk assessments had not been completed for people at higher risk from COVID-19. There were no records of cleaning high-touch areas, no formal checks of cleaning schedules and the contingency plan did not cover future COVID-19 outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a Good, Requires improvement or other quality rating.
Visitor safety
The home had a visiting policy linked to government guidance. Visitors had to use PPE and show a negative lateral flow test.
“Visitors were required to wear PPE provided and evidence a negative COVID-19 lateral flow test (LFT).” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors were assured that PPE was being used safely and that testing was available for residents and staff.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safe admissions
Inspectors were assured that people were being admitted safely to the home.
“We were assured that the provider was admitting people safely to the service.” from the report
Missing higher-risk assessments
needs fixingIndividual risk assessments had not been completed for people in higher-risk groups. This meant the home had not fully identified how to reduce those risks.
“Risk assessments for people using the service belonging to higher risk groups had not taken place to reduce the risks.” from the report
Cleaning checks
needs fixingThere were no records showing that high-touch areas had been cleaned, and no formal audit of cleaning schedules had taken place.
“However, there was no record of cleaning of high touch points and no formal auditing of the cleaning schedules had taken place.” from the report
Outbreak planning
needs fixingThe contingency plan did not explain what action would be taken in future COVID-19 outbreaks. The registered manager said these issues would be addressed immediately.
“The contingency plan in place did not reflect action to be taken during future COVID-19 outbreaks.” from the report
- 01Have individual risk assessments now been completed for residents who are at higher risk from COVID-19?
- 02How do you record cleaning of high-touch areas, and who checks the cleaning schedules?
- 03What changes have been made to the contingency plan for a future COVID-19 outbreak?
- 04How do you monitor isolation and social distancing for residents with dementia when isolation is difficult?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 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.
Every inspection of Sutton Court
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 March 2018.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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 £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.