Sutton Manor

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 3 June 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Our view of the service

About the service

Sutton Manor is a residential care home. There were 31 people using the service at the time of inspection.

Who the service is for

The service supports people and people living with dementia.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 11 May 2026 and 14 May 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.

At this assessment, we found people received care from staff who were kind, caring and respectful. People told us they generally felt safe and spoke positively about staff, describing them as friendly, gentle and attentive. We observed positive interactions throughout the inspection, and staff sought consent when supporting people with their care. People’s immediate needs were met in a timely way, and there was evidence that people were offered choice in their day‑to‑day lives, including meals and routines.

Medicines were managed safely and effectively. Medicines were stored appropriately, records were complete, and we found no gaps in the medicines administration records we reviewed. As required medicines protocols were clear and provided staff with appropriate guidance.

Leaders and staff were responsive when issues were identified. Some infection prevention and control and environmental issues were identified. These were addressed promptly by managers, and actions were taken during the inspection to reduce risks to people. This demonstrated a willingness to learn and improve, although it also highlighted the need for governance systems to be more effective in identifying concerns earlier.

We found further examples where oversight had improved but not yet consistently embedded. This included equipment checks, maintenance records and some aspects of recruitment governance. Where gaps were identified, the provider took action and told us they were reviewing processes to strengthen assurance and oversight.

People’s experiences of activities were mixed. People spoke positively about staff, although some told us they would like more varied activities, particularly at weekends, and greater use of facilities such as outdoor spaces. We saw increased engagement during the inspection, and the provider had already begun introducing additional activities and resources to enhance people’s experiences.

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. There was 1 instance where a person’s decisions and capacity to make choice was unclear. This was highlighted and the provider engaged the person to ensure their decisions were clearly documented.

Overall, leaders demonstrated a positive and open approach to learning and improvement. The provider recognised some areas needed to be embedded to ensure governance systems were consistently effective and risks were identified promptly, people were supported by caring staff and leaders who responded appropriately when concerns were raised.