Sunnyside Respite Service

Who the service is for

This is a specialist service for people with a learning disability and autistic people. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence, and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

We carried out this assessment from 31 July to 10 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People were supported by staff who were skilled and competent to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff were happy with the training they received. Staff were supported by the management team through supervisions and appraisals.

The provider had a process in place to safeguard people from risk of abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and knew how to act on concerns. The provider had a recruitment system in place to ensure appropriate staff were employed.

Staff were aware of how to keep people safe and risks to people and the environment had been managed. There was a culture of learning and improvement in the service. Lessons were identified from incidents, and learning was shared with members of staff.

People's needs were assessed before they moved into the home. The support they needed from staff was clearly recorded in their care plans. People's care plans recorded their preferences, likes and dislikes. This supported staff to provide person-centred care.

People received their medicines on time and as prescribed. The provider carried out checks on new staff to ensure they were suitable to work. Suitable infection control arrangements were in place.

The staff knew people well and were kind and caring. Staff planned and provided care to meet people's needs and to take account of their preferences. People were offered choices around their meals and maintained a well-balanced diet.

People received access to health care services when required. Various professionals were involved in providing healthcare to people.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Policies and procedures in relation to the service and other information used to inform people using the service and staff about how it intended to operate had been reviewed regularly to ensure they were up to date.

There were systems in place to continuously assess and monitor the quality of the service. This included obtaining people's views and checking staff were following the correct procedures.