Archived: Sunrise Operations Eastbourne Limited

Updated 31 January 2017

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection which took place on 1 and 2 December 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and two experts by experience in older people’s care and mental health. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

The last inspection took place in May2015 where two breaches of regulation were identified.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home, including previous inspection reports and the Provider Information Return (PIR) This is a form in which we ask the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at information and notifications which had been submitted by the home. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required by law to tell us about. We also reviewed any other information that had been shared with us by the local authority and quality monitoring team.

We spoke with 24 people living at Sunrise throughout the community and 19 staff. This included the registered and deputy manager, carers, registered nurses, heads of department, chefs, domestic and maintenance employees working at the home during the inspection. We also spoke with seven relatives and visitors. Not everyone was able to tell us about their experiences of living at Sunrise. Therefore we carried out observations in communal areas and throughout the home to see how people were supported throughout the day and during their meals in each of the neighbourhoods.

We spent time looking at care records for seven people. This is when we look at care documentation for people to get a picture of their care needs and how these are met. We also looked at documentation in a further two care plans to follow up on specific health conditions and areas of care for the person, including risk assessments.

Medicine Administration Records (MAR) charts and medicine storage and administration were checked and we read daily records and other information completed by staff. We reviewed three staff files including one staff member who had recently began work at Sunrise and other records relating to the management of the home, such as complaints and accident / incident recording, quality assurance and audit documentation.

Updated 31 January 2017

Sunrise Eastbourne is a purpose built location. It is registered to provide accommodation for up to 107 people. Providing care and support, nursing, dementia care and respite accommodation. Sunrise is described as a community which is divided into neighbourhoods. This includes the Assisted Living neighbourhood which provides care and nursing for people dependant on their level of need and the Reminiscence neighbourhood which provides care for people living with dementia.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 1 and 2 December 2016.

Sunrise was inspected in May 2015. Two breaches of regulation were identified. Regulation 9, Person- centred care and Regulation 12, Safe care and treatment of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider sent us an action plan stating they would have addressed all of these concerns by October 2015. At this inspection we found these breaches had been met.

Sunrise had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

The manager was in day to day charge of the home, supported by the deputy manager. People told us that they felt supported by the management team and knew that there was always someone available to support them when needed. Staff told us that the manager and deputy had a good overview of the home and knew everyone well. Staff went the extra mile to provide person centred care for people and were highly motivated to improve people’s day to day lives and had an excellent understanding of their needs.

We received many positive comments from people, staff and relatives. People said that they were able to question, discuss and be involved in changes and felt part of ‘the team’. People had a varied and active daily programme of activities offered. Staff had identified specific areas of interest for people and had gone out of their way to arrange special trips, organised pets visiting the home, and taken people out to events that were important to them.

Staff told us training provided was effective and ensured they were able to provide the best care for people. Staff were encouraged to attend further training, with a number of competency checks taking place to ensure staff understanding after training completed. When errors had occurred in relation to medicines the registered manager had ensured that all staff responsible for medicines had received further training and assessment. This showed a proactive response to facilitate on going improvement. There were numerous audits and a rigorous system in place to assess the quality of the service.

All required maintenance and equipment and services maintenance had taken place. Fire evacuation plans and personal evacuation procedure information was available in event of an emergency evacuation.

Medicine documentation and policies were in place. These followed best practice guidelines to ensure people received their medicines safely. Regular auditing and checks were carried out to ensure high standards were maintained. People told us they received their medicines on time.

There was a programme of supervision for all staff. Staff told us they valued the regular supervision as it was their opportunity to discuss their development and talk about their role.

Staffing levels were reviewed regularly to ensure people’s needs were met. Robust recruitment checks were completed before staff began work. And all new staff completed a 12 week induction period, which included shadowing a buddy and receiving training and support before being deemed competent to work unsupervised.

Care plans and risk assessments had been completed to ensure people received appropriate care. Care plans identified all health care needs and had been reviewed regularly to ensure information was up to date and relevant. People’s mental health and capacity were assessed and reviewed with pertinent information in care files to inform staff of people’s individual needs. We found some areas of documentation needed to be reviewed to ensure they were clear. This was addressed during the inspection. The co-ordinator responded to this during the inspection to ensure the information was clarified.

People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible and supported to participate in daily activities. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding on how to recognise and report abuse. Staff treated people with respect and dignity and involved people in decisions about how they spent their time. People were asked for their consent before care was provided and had their privacy and dignity respected. Feedback was gained from people this included questionnaires and regular meetings with minutes available for people to access.

People’s nutritional needs were monitored and reviewed. People had a choice of meals provided and staff knew people’s likes and dislikes. People gave positive feedback about the food and visitors told us they had eaten with their relative and found the food to be of a very high standard.

Referrals were made appropriately to outside agencies when required. For example GP visits, community nurses, chiropodist and speech and language therapists (SALT). And notifications had been completed to inform CQC and other outside organisations when events occurred.