SummerView

Summerview cares for up to six people with learning difficulties and at the time of inspection six people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We found infection prevention control processes at the service needed to improve to mitigate risk of infection. Guidance on the use of PPE and infection control procedures needed to be implemented.

Governance and oversight of the service needed to be more robust to address issues promptly.

Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew how to raise any concerns. The provider had policies and procedures in place for staff to follow.

People’s care needs were attended to by staff who knew them well and how they liked to be supported. There were enough staff on duty and the provider had appropriate recruitment processes in place.

There were processes in place to learn lessons when things go wrong to encourage learning and improve care.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.

The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture. People received person centred care that was inclusive and promoted their independence and choices. Staff empowered people to make choices over their lives and supported them to attain their goals.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: The last rating for this service was Good (9 October 2018).

Why we inspected

We inspected to check Infection Prevention Control procedures following an outbreak of COVID 19. Due to issues identified, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.

The overall rating for the service has changed from Good to Requires Improvement. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the Safe and Well Led sections of this full report.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

The provider has taken steps to address the areas of concern identified.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.

Summerview is a residential care home for up to six people with learning disabilities and may have mental health issues. At the time of our inspection five people were using the service. The service had spacious living areas and was set over three floors. The service was set in a residential area with easy access to the local community and had a large garden. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service had a registered manager who oversaw a number of small services, for the day to day running of the service there was a separately appointed manager in place and assistant manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy

The service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection and to learn lessons from accidents and incidents. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People were supported to eat and drink enough as to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to other health professionals were made when required. The environment was well maintained and suitable for the needs of people.

The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed choices.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was well-led. The service had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.

The service provides accommodation and support for up to six people with learning disabilities. There were six people living at the service at the time of our inspection. Due to their complex needs some people found it difficult to communicate with us verbally. To help us gather views we also spoke with people’s relatives.

The service has a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

People were cared for by staff that had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks were completed. There were enough staff available to support people.

Records were regularly updated and staff were provided with the information they needed to meet people’s needs. People's care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Staff and the manager were able to explain to us what they would do to keep people safe and how they would protect their rights. Staff had been provided with training in safeguarding adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were relaxed in the company of staff. Staff were able to demonstrate they knew people well. Staff were attentive to people's needs and treated people with dignity and respect.

People who used the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them, these activities were diverse to meet people’s social needs.

The service worked well with other professionals to ensure that people's health needs were met. Where appropriate, support and guidance was sought from health care professionals, including people’s G.Ps and other health professionals.

Relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint, any complaints were resolved efficiently and quickly.

The manager had a number of ways of gathering views on the service including holding meetings with people, staff and talking with relatives.

The manager and provider carried out a number of quality monitoring audits to ensure the service was running effectively. These included audits on medication management and the environment.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service the staff asked to see our identification. This meant that the appropriate actions were taken to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access their home.

We saw records which showed that the health and safety in the service was regularly checked. This included regular checks on such areas as fire safety equipment, as well as checks on the environment. This told us people were looked after safely.

We saw that the staff were provided with training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to ensure that people were safeguarded.

Is the service effective?

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records were regularly reviewed and updated which meant that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were to be met.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were relaxed in the company of each other and staff. We saw that staff were attentive to people's needs. Staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate they knew people well. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Is the service responsive?

People who used the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them. People's choices were taken in to account and listened to. This was demonstrated in minutes we saw which related to meetings with people who used the service. People's care records showed that, where appropriate, support and guidance was sought from health care professionals, including a doctor, dentist, chiropodist and optician. This told us that the service worked well with other professionals and that people's needs were met.

Is the service well-led

The service had a number of quality assurance measures in place. The manager was very proactive in monitoring and looking for ways to improve the service. We saw the quality of the service had been maintained.

One person using the service only came for day respite, they were comfortable in the environment and we observed good staff interaction with them.

Another person was sat in the lounge looking out of the window with music on in the background and a hot drink. When we spoke with them about this set up they smiled and swayed to the music. We were aware from the care records that the person liked to sit and listen to music.

We observed the interaction of one person with a staff member and saw that person had evident affection and concern for the member of staff and felt comfortable with staff.

We saw that the atmosphere within the home had changed for the better since our last inspection. Staff report that the personalities of people using the service are starting to develop and that they are encouraging this.

We spoke with three people out of six, including people who did not communicate much verbally. People we spoke with were happy living at SummerView they told us, "It's nice, we go out on activities. We go to cafes."