Sunnycroft Residential Care Home

The inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 6 & 9 April 2018 by a lead inspector.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.

People, relatives and staff expressed an extremely high level of satisfaction and confidence in the leadership and management of the service, rating it outstanding in the most recent survey. People received prompt advice and treatment from healthcare professionals who told us they would recommend the home, that staff were 'fantastic' and knew what they were doing.

The home was exceptionally well led. The provider and registered manager were passionate and committed to developing a service where people received genuinely person centred care. There was an relaxed, open and transparent culture within the home. Staff felt very well supported and valued and told us the registered manager was 'brilliant' and provided clear leadership and direction. All staff understood and embraced the values and vision of the provider and registered manager.

There was a culture of learning at Sunnycroft. Incident and accidents were investigated robustly, and any learning shared with the staff team to reduce the likelihood of a re-occurrence. Staff received a very good level of training, supervision and appraisal to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective, person centred care. Staff consistently empowered people to maintain their independence and make decisions and choices about how to receive their care, and spend their time.

People's needs were assessed before they moved into the home to ensure their needs could be met. Person centred care plans were drawn up with the involvement of people and their relatives and recorded in an electronic care planning system which provided a high level of detail and guidance for staff in how people wanted to receive their care. Reviews were carried out regularly with people and relatives to ensure care plans remained current and relevant to people's needs and wishes.

Activities were creative and innovative, and were developed according to people's interests and histories, and often had a purpose, enabling people to contribute to the life of the home. This gave people opportunities to socialise and a sense of purpose and fulfilment. Cultural, religious and national celebrations took place within the home and community. Community links were established, for example, during fundraising, which further increased opportunities for people to feel valued and part of the wider community.

The service supported people and their relatives to develop close relationships with each other and with care staff and we observed genuinely warm, friendly, relaxed and fun interactions during the inspection. The atmosphere in the home was vibrant and people clearly appreciated the happy environment.

Staff were exceptionally kind and caring to people and their relatives who told us how much they valued and appreciated the care they were given as well as their loved ones. Staff went the extra mile to ensure people felt listened to and reassured if they were upset or anxious. Staff were consistently aware of how their approach to support impacted on people's privacy, dignity and choices which they were careful to respect. They took steps to ensure people felt fully involved in their care and had the right to refuse care if they chose to do so.

Robust systems were in place to monitor the safety and quality of the home, including a varied range of audits which informed the service improvement plan. The provider and registered manager worked closely with a consultant to ensure a programme of continuous improvement, and people, staff and relatives were all involved in this process.

People's rights were protected because staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff always sought people's consent before providing care or support.

Staffing levels were good and staff had time to spend with people, taking a genuine interest in them and supporting them with their chosen activities and care needs promptly.

People were safe from harm and abuse. Staff had received appropriate training in safeguarding people and risks to people had been identified and mitigated through actions and guidance for staff.

There were robust systems in place to manage and administer medicines. People received their medicines safely from staff who were trained to do so.

The prevention and control of infection was well managed. The home was clean and there were no malodours. Appropriate personal protective clothing was supplied and staff knew when to use it.

An emergency plan was in place which provided guidance to staff in what to in the event of an emergency, and had identified people's individual support needs should an evacuation become necessary..

People were supported with a nutritious and balanced diet that met their needs and preferences. People who required special diets were offered appropriate choices.

The provider had a complaints process which was on display. People and relatives told us they would feel able to complain if they needed to and felt they would be listened to.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found