CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sutton Village Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors found minor medicines recording errors and one care plan missing information about a health condition.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with food, drink and healthcare, and staff had relevant training and support. Some people said food was not always hot enough.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and caring, respected privacy and dignity, and involved people in decisions about their care. People were supported to make choices and maintain independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's needs, preferences and routines, and care was regularly reviewed. People could raise concerns and were supported with activities and end-of-life planning.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective quality assurance systems and an approachable manager. However, monitoring of accidents and incidents was not robust enough to identify patterns and trends, and one recruitment risk was not recorded.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Sutton Village Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, with some minor recording and monitoring issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 08 May 2019. One inspector and a local authority quality officer visited. They spoke with people, a relative, staff, managers and visiting professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, supported by trained staff, treated kindly and involved in decisions about their care. Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, and activities were available.
There were some minor issues. Inspectors found recording errors in medicines records, missing information in one care plan and some food that was not hot enough. Quality checks did not always identify patterns in accidents and incidents. These issues were raised with the manager, and some were addressed during the inspection.
The previous inspection in March 2018 rated the home Requires Improvement and found breaches about medicines and quality monitoring. Inspectors found the required improvements had been made, and the home was no longer in breach.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, independence and choice.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Safer medicines management
The home had improved its medicines systems since the previous inspection. People received medicines as prescribed from trained staff.
“At the last inspection on 29 March 2018, we asked the provider to take action to ensure the safe management of medicines.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, likes, dislikes and preferred routines. Staff knew how to support people in line with these preferences.
“This enabled staff to provide person-centred care and support people in line with their preferences.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff received induction, ongoing training, supervision and support. Inspectors found staff competent and knowledgeable.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled; and carried out their roles effectively.” from the report
Activities and interests
People could take part in social and leisure activities supported by an activities coordinator and visiting entertainers.
“People were supported to access a range of social and leisure activities and engage in their interests.” from the report
Medicines records
minorInspectors found minor recording errors in medicines administration records and pain patch records. The manager addressed these when they were discussed.
“There were some minor recording errors on medication administration records, as well as records for pain patches.” from the report
Missing health information
needs fixingOne person's care plan did not include information about a health condition. This could have left staff without instructions on how to recognise and respond to that need.
“However, we found one person's care plan missing information about one of their health conditions.” from the report
Food temperature
minorPeople generally enjoyed the food and had choices, but some said it was not always hot enough. The manager agreed to address this.
“However, some said the food wasn't always hot enough.” from the report
Incident monitoring
needs fixingThe manager had oversight of accidents and incidents, but the system did not reliably identify patterns and trends that could help prevent repeat problems.
“Although the registered manager had oversight of accidents and incidents the system was not robust enough to identify patterns and trends.” from the report
- 01How do you now check medicines administration records and pain patch records for errors?
- 02How do you make sure every care plan includes clear instructions about each person's health conditions?
- 03What checks do you use to make sure meals are served at a suitable temperature?
- 04How do you identify patterns and trends in accidents and incidents, and what changes have resulted?
- 05How do you record and review risks identified during staff recruitment?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care; inspectors reviewed three care records and three medicines records, rather than every record. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 June 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, May 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but medicines and risk records were not always safe or well managed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 March 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, checked three care plans and medicines records, and reviewed the building and service records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were supported by trained staff, received help with food and healthcare, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Activities were available and care plans were generally detailed and personal.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led, giving an overall rating of Requires Improvement. Two people did not receive prescribed pain patches. Some risk assessments and care plans were out of date, and quality checks had not found these problems.
At the previous inspection in March and April 2017, the home also required improvement and breached Regulation 17. The home had improved its management systems and was no longer in breach of that regulation, but inspectors found that further improvement was still needed.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff being friendly, kind and respectful. People were supported to maintain dignity, privacy and independence.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and staff were aware of the importance of maintaining confidentiality.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received induction, supervision and training. Inspectors found they were suitably qualified and knew how to meet people's needs.
“People were supported by skilled staff who knew how to meet their needs.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were offered food choices and support with eating and drinking. Staff contacted health professionals when needed and acted on their advice.
“People were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet and people were supported with eating and drinking.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities such as crafts, baking and entertainment. The home had links with the local college and supported contact with family and friends.
“People were supported to access activities, which they enjoyed.” from the report
Clean environment
The home appeared clean and had infection control procedures. Staff used gloves and aprons when appropriate.
“The service was clean and staff wore gloves and aprons to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Missed medicines
seriousTwo people did not receive prescribed pain patches. Staff could not explain why, and guidance for some medicines was not complete.
“We found medications were not always administered as prescribed.” from the report
Out-of-date risk records
needs fixingSome risk assessments were not updated when people's needs changed, including after falls. This could have left people at risk of harm.
“This meant people could have been at risk of potential harm.” from the report
Delays at mealtimes
minorStaff were not organised well at the midday meal. Some people had to wait for help before they could eat.
“This meant some people were not supported to eat their meals at the same time as everyone else and had to wait to be supported.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingAudits did not identify medicines errors or gaps in care planning and risk management. Training and staff competency checks also needed better tracking.
“This meant potential issues could not always be addressed.” from the report
End-of-life wishes not recorded
needs fixingThe home had created a template for recording people's end-of-life preferences, but these wishes had not yet been completed for some people.
“This posed a risk that people's preferences might not be known or respected.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every medicine, including pain patches, is given exactly as prescribed?
- 02How are you now checking that risk assessments and care plans are updated promptly after falls or changes in health?
- 03What changes have you made to staff deployment at mealtimes so people do not have to wait for support?
- 04How do you now check staff medicine competency and when their training is due?
- 05Have each person's end-of-life wishes been discussed and recorded, if they want to share them?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with records reviewed for three people and observations made during the day, including at mealtimes. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 May 2018 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 Village Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 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.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 2010.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Kingston upon Hull, City of
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 £1,350 a week. 12 can care for a couple. 8 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.”
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.