Archived: Summerhouse

Summerhouse is a residential care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Summerhouse is registered to provide care for up to 11 people, living with mental health needs. At the time of the inspection, there were eight people living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People told us they liked living at Summerhouse and felt safe. One person said, "It’s a beautiful place, I really like it here, it is great."

• There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and they had been recruited safely. Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to carry out their role.

• The provider had safeguarding procedures that staff were familiar with. Staff knew how to report concerns and were confident that anything they raised would be taken seriously by management.

• Medicines were managed in accordance with current regulations and guidance. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored and administered appropriately.

• Quality assurance processes were robust and risks to people and the environment were managed safely. The service was clean and infection control audits ensured that cleaning tasks were maintained.

• People were offered choice at mealtimes and menus contained a variety of nutritious and healthy foods.

• The registered manager and provider carried out regular checks on the quality and safety of the service.

• People were involved in the development of personalised care plans that were reviewed regularly.

• Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. Staff had developed positive relationships with people and knew what was important to them.

• The service met the characteristics of Good in all areas. More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

The service was rated as Good at the last full comprehensive inspection, the report for which was published on 7 October 2016.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous inspection rating.

Follow up:

There is no required follow up to this inspection. However, we will continue to monitor the service and will inspect the service again based on the information we receive.

The inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 09 August 2016.

There was a registered manager in place at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.

People a told us they felt the service was effective. Staff and the registered manager had received safeguarding training and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the provider’s safeguarding policy and explain the action they would take if they identified any concerns.

The risks relating to people’s health and welfare were assessed and these were recorded along with actions identified to reduce those risks in the least restrictive way. They were personalised and provided sufficient information to allow staff to protect people whilst promoting their independence.

There were suitable systems in place to ensure the safe storage and administration of medicines. Medicines were administered by staff who had received appropriate training and assessments. Healthcare professionals, such as chiropodists, opticians, GPs and dentists were involved in people’s care when necessary.

Staff were aware of the legislation which allows people to be deprived of their liberty in their best interest. However, this did not apply to anyone living in the home.

People were supported by staff who had received an induction into the home and appropriate training, professional development and supervision to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and were sensitive to their individual choices and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff were responsive to people’s communication styles and gave people information and choices in ways that they could understand.

People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Mealtimes were a social event and staff supported people, when necessary in a patient and friendly manner.

There was an opportunity for people to become involved in developing the service and they were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided both informally and through a monthly one to one review. They were also supported to raise complaints should they wish to.

People told us they felt the home was well-led and were positive about the registered manager who understood the responsibilities of their role. Staff were aware of the provider’s vision and values, how they related to their work and spoke positively about the culture and management of the home.

There were systems in place to monitor quality and safety of the home provided. Accidents and incidents were monitored, analysed and remedial actions identified to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

We considered five outcomes during this inspection. These being

Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment

Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services

Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises

Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers

Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of the service

We considered the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask.

Is the service safe?

People told us they were happy with the service they received. They said they felt safe and had the same staff who knew what support they required. Staff had completed safeguarding and other essential training and were able to tell us what they would do if they had any concerns about people's safety or welfare. Care plans contained individual indicators which would help staff identify if a person required additional support.

Risks to people's health and safety had been assessed and management plans were in place to reduce these risks. There were systems in place to ensure staff with appropriate skills and knowledge were employed and available at times people required them.

We found the home to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People's human rights were therefore properly recognised, respected and promoted.

Is the service effective?

People were receiving a service which effectively met their needs. The manager and staff were knowledgeable about people's care needs and how to meet them. Staff had received training to ensure they had the skills necessary to care for people. The manager and staff were aware of who to contact for specialist advice and when this may be required. We saw where necessary external health professionals were appropriately contacted. Most people had lived at the home for many years and had not required admissions to hospital other than for general physical health needs.

People were positive about the service provided. They were supported to lead lives of their choosing and enjoyed their leisure activities. People told us they were supported to attend health appointments.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. People said they were treated with respect and dignity by the care staff. People also told us they were happy with the way they were supported. People said they were happy living at the home. One said 'The foods good, the staff are nice and I like living here'. Another person said their only concern was that they might not be able to stay at the home. We saw people were able to laugh with the manager and staff.

Staff said they had time to meet people's identified needs and could provide the support people needed. Staff were aware of people's rights and respected these. Records of care provided showed people had received care as detailed in their care plans.

Is the service responsive?

The service was flexible and responsive to people's changing and urgent needs. For example, when one person had had a significant physical health need immediate action had been taken to seek emergency medical attention. The manager had followed them to the hospital to ensure they were being cared for correctly there. The person told us they had been looked after well when they had come home from hospital. This showed people's changing needs were supported.

Procedures were in place to manage unexpected events which could interrupt the smooth running of the service. Staff and people were aware of what they should do in the event of an emergency.

Is the service well-led?

The manager also worked some care shifts. This meant they were aware of people's needs and how they should be supported. The manager and staff had all completed relevant training and qualifications. People's views were informally gathered on a daily basis and formal individual monthly reviews were undertaken. People were able to make suggestions and voice opinions. Systems were in place to ensure any accidents or incidents were reported to the manager and any necessary action taken.

Staff promoted a friendly atmosphere and engaged easily with people living in the home. There was open communication with the manager who had a good knowledge of people living in the home.

We observed the lunchtime meal. People were able to have alternatives if they didn't like something on the menu. Staff had completed relevant training and the service had recently received the highest rating for food hygiene from the local authority. We viewed the communal areas, bathrooms and the rooms of some people who gave us permission. All of these were clean although some areas of carpet were heavily stained.

There appeared to be enough staff to care for people's needs. We spoke with four staff who told us they could voice concerns to the manager at any time and these were sorted out straight away. The service sought feedback from people within the home and health professionals to improve the service. Audits were carried out to ensure standards were maintained.