Sandley Court Care Home

Updated 3 February 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 25 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours of notice of the inspection.

Updated 3 February 2022

This inspection took place on 24 September 2018 and was unannounced.

Sandley Court Residential Care Home is registered to provide nursing and personal care for up to 23 people and provides care to older people, including those living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 22 people living at the service. The service is a converted Victorian house situated in a residential suburb of Southport. There is a ramp access to the front of the property to assist people with limited mobility. The dining room and lounge are situated on the ground floor. There is also a quiet lounge located on the first floor where people can entertain their visitors.

Sandley Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At the time of our inspection a registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. 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 service is run.

At the previous inspection in February 2018, the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. This was because staff training records were not up to date, the environment required improving to meet the needs of people living with dementia and audit process were not always effective in identifying compliance with safety and quality standards. During this inspection we checked to see if improvements had been made and found that they had.

We saw that staff had recently received refresher training in mandatory subjects such as fire safety, safeguarding and moving and handling. In addition, all staff had been booked on a dementia awareness course whilst some staff had already completed it. We also saw evidence that diabetes training was planned in addition to training around stroke awareness.

During this inspection we checked to see if improvements had been made to the environment and found that it had. The service had new carpets fitted to all floors. The carpet was plain in design making it easier for people to orientate themselves. We also saw evidence of better signage, for example, more highly visible door numbers for people’s bedrooms and signs to point out the location of shared spaces such as lounges, bathrooms and toilets. This helped people living with dementia navigate their environment more easily and so potentially reduce their levels of anxiety and distress.

We checked to see if improvements to audit processes had been made since the last inspection and found that they had. Audits were now more structured in their approach and identified any areas of concern and the action required to resolve them.

Each of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Sandley Court. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding people from abuse and mistreatment and were able to explain how they would report any concerns.

Arrangements were in place with external contractors to ensure the premises were kept safe. The service also employed a maintenance person who attended to the premises on a daily basis.

We found that medicines were managed safely. Medicines were stored correctly and were administered by staff who were competent to do so.

We looked at how accidents and incidents were reported in the service and found they were managed appropriately.

We looked at the recruitment processes which were in place. We reviewed records for four members of staff. We saw that each staff member’s suitability to work at the service had been checked prior to employment to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

We looked at care records belonging to four people. Appropriate risk assessments had been carried out which helped to improve people’s safety. People’s care requirements were identified and people were appropriately referred to external health professionals when required. This helped to maintain people’s health and well-being.

People and their relatives were involved in the formulation of their care plans. We saw that people’s preferences were considered. Staff supported people in a person-centred way and treated them in a way which respected their dignity and independence.

Staff sought consent from people before providing support. Staff we spoke with understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure people consented to the care they received. The MCA is legislation which protects the rights of people to make their own decisions.

We found that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Interactions we observed between staff and people living at the service were warm and caring. The service had a homely and relaxed atmosphere. Staff treated people with respect and took care to maintain people’s privacy, dignity and independence.

The service has an open visiting policy for friends and family which helped people feel more supported. For people who had no one to represent them, the service would support them in finding an advocate to ensure that their views and wishes were considered.

The service employed a full-time activity co-ordinator who facilitated varied daily social activities to keep people occupied and stimulated. At the time of our inspection, the activity co-ordinator had recently left and the service was actively recruiting a replacement. There was a monthly activities schedule which included various activities from external providers.

We asked people what they thought about mealtimes and feedback was positive. All meals were home cooked on the premises. People told us they had choice and could have an alternative if they did not like what was on the menu. We spoke to staff who were knowledgeable about people’s preferences and dietary requirements.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and both people we spoke with and their relatives told us they would feel comfortable in raising any concerns they had with the manager. Complaints were recorded and acted upon appropriately.

At the time of our inspection people were unable to access the outside space without supervision from staff. This was because the garden was in the process of being renovated. A large pond had been filled in and there were plans to redesign the garden so it was easier for people to navigate.