CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Sutton Veny House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe recruitment, enough staff overall, safe medicines management, risk plans and suitable infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular quality checks, a clear management structure and opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give feedback. Some staff raised concerns about the manager's approach, leading to a recommendation to improve staff feedback.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Sutton Veny House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but asked the home to improve how it listens to staff.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 October 2023. It followed a safeguarding concern being investigated by the local authority. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff overall, safe medicines management, suitable risk plans, good infection control and regular checks on the building. People and relatives said they felt safe and received caring support.
Some staff gave negative feedback about the management approach. Inspectors did not observe concerning behaviour, but recommended that the manager create more opportunities for staff to give feedback and question practice. The other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Safe care
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“People and relatives told us people were safe at the service.” from the report
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed and the records they checked were complete.
“Medicines were managed safely as people had their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Caring staff
People and relatives described the staff as caring. Inspectors also observed kind and caring interactions.
“We observed interactions between staff and people that were kind and caring.” from the report
Quality checks
The home and provider carried out regular audits and safety checks. Improvements were recorded and monitored.
“Systems were in place to monitor and check quality of the service.” from the report
Call bell delays
minorPeople said call bells could sometimes take too long to answer when staff were busy. Inspectors found no reported impact on the care people received, and the manager monitored response times.
“At times people told us staff were busy and there may be a delay in answering call bells.” from the report
Limited guidance for one person
needs fixingOne person had very little guidance for staff about how to support them safely when distressed. The manager provided a more detailed plan after the inspection.
“However, for 1 person there was very little guidance available to staff.” from the report
Staff feedback
needs fixingSome staff said the manager was not approachable and favoured some staff. Inspectors did not observe concerning behaviour, but made a recommendation about listening and responding to staff feedback.
“However, some staff told us the registered manager was not very approachable and favoured some staff.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells answered when staff are busy, and what do your latest call bell records show?
- 02How do you give staff a safe and confidential way to raise concerns or question management decisions?
- 03What extra guidance is now in place for the person who previously had limited support information when distressed?
- 04How do you check that care plans and risk assessments are updated when people's needs change?
- 05What action has been taken in response to the recommendation about listening and responding to staff feedback?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, prompted by a safeguarding concern; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with improvements still needed to hot water, heating, food and activities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 April, 4 May and 25 May 2022. The inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, toured the home, observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, good infection control, suitable care planning and a positive culture led by the new manager.
There were some limits. Hot water took time to reach some en-suite basins, one room was often cold, feedback about food was mixed and some activities did not suit people's interests or the times they wanted. The inspectors made recommendations to keep the hot water and heating under review and to improve activities.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published in August 2020. The inspection found that earlier problems with staff training and care records had been improved, so the home was no longer in breach of Regulations 18 and 17.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely, with checks to identify gaps.
“The medicine administration records had been fully completed to show people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed friendly and respectful interactions, with staff giving people time and not rushing them.
“Interactions between staff and people who used the service were friendly and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered a wide range of needs and staff knew people well. People were supported to choose their routines and remain as independent as possible.
“Each person had a personalised care plan in place, which incorporated information gained from the assessment process.” from the report
Improved leadership
The new manager had introduced clearer processes, regular audits and a more open culture. Staff said they felt valued and supported.
“New processes had been implemented and the culture of the home had improved.” from the report
Good communication support
The home used different ways to help people communicate, including writing boards, adapted computer software and accessible feedback forms.
“The service met the Accessible Information Standard.” from the report
Night-time handling
seriousOne person said night staff were rough when repositioning them in bed. The manager reported the concern to safeguarding services, spoke to the night team and arranged extra training.
“People felt safe at the home although one person told us night staff were rough when repositioning them in bed.” from the report
Hot water and room temperature
needs fixingSome en-suite basins had delayed hot water and one room was often cold. The inspectors recommended keeping the heating and hot water systems under review.
“We recommend the provider keeps the hot water and heating systems under review and takes action if problems continue.” from the report
Activities
needs fixingSome people felt activities could be improved, were not suitable for adults or took place at an inconvenient time. The inspectors recommended reviewing activities in the home and local community.
“We recommend the provider considers the social activity provision available to people in the home and within the local community.” from the report
Mixed food feedback
minorPeople were offered choices and alternatives, but views about the food varied. The manager said they would review the supper menu and snacks with people's preferences in mind.
“Whilst people received a choice, and alternatives to the main menu were accommodated, there was variable feedback about the food.” from the report
- 01What has changed for night staff since the concern about rough repositioning, and how do you check that people are handled safely?
- 02Which rooms have delayed hot water or heating problems, and what will happen if the problem continues?
- 03How will you make sure the room offered to my relative is warm and has suitable hot water?
- 04How are activities chosen, and can they be changed to suit my relative's interests and preferred times?
- 05What changes have been made to the supper menu, snacks and food choices following mixed feedback?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; inspectors also checked the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 July 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 Veny House
6 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2022Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.