Sutherland Court

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 16 June 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of Inspection: 23 April to 20 May 2026. Sutherland Court is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 74 people. Sutherland Court provides support to older people, people who are living with a dementia, people with physical disabilities or sensory impairments. At the time of inspection, there were 68 people using the service.

We completed this inspection as part of our routine programme, and because some concerns had been raised around how people were supported. People were generally safe, well cared for and treated with kindness and dignity. Feedback from people and relatives was overwhelmingly positive. Relatives consistently told us they felt confident in staff, described care as person‑centred and responsive, and felt people were supported by staff who knew them well and went the extra mile to meet their needs. People felt protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and risks were generally identified and managed well, with appropriate involvement of health and social care professionals when people’s needs changed.

The service had admitted a small number of autistic people but did not have this listed on the registration as a group of people they would provide support to. In light of this 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. Apart from the size of the service and its appearance the service worked in line with the principles of right support, right care and right culture.

People experienced good quality, person‑centred care that supported their rights, independence and wellbeing. Evidence from our site visits, care records, and feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals showed the service was working in line with the principles of right support, right care, right culture.

Care was effective and responsive. People were supported to access healthcare services, and professionals spoke positively about how staff communicated and worked in partnership. Medicines were managed safely, infection risks were well controlled, and the environment was generally clean and well maintained. People were supported to maintain their health, nutrition and wellbeing, and many relatives described improvements in people’s quality of life, including engagement in activities and social interaction.

Care was rights‑based and inclusive, supporting right care. Staff understood people’s needs well and generally ensured people could express their views and make choices. However, staff needed to consider how they could best support people whose first language was not English to make fully informed decisions or fully express their wished. Families and professionals told us they felt listened to and confident that staff would act quickly if concerns arose. There was strong partnership working with health and social care professionals, including learning disability teams, GPs and therapy services. Medicines, infection prevention and risk management systems were in place and managed safely.

Staff were proud of the care they provided. Staff described strong teamwork, good access to training and visible, approachable leaders. Equality, diversity and inclusion were embedded in practice, with people’s cultural, religious and personal identities understood and respected. This supported positive experiences for people and continuity of care. We observed kind and respectful interactions, and people were supported in ways that promoted dignity, independence and choice. People were involved in decisions about their care, with families included where appropriate.