Summercourt

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care needs were assessed in a detailed and person‑centred way. People’s care plans reflected their current needs, preferences and areas of potential risk. For example, increasing the oversight of one person whose risk of pressure damage had increased. This included re-positioning charts which were regularly audited.

Relatives confirmed they had been involved in an initial assessment; they told us they were kept informed of any changes to their relative’s care. They described how this gave them peace of mind. Some people told us they were visited by staff before they moved to Summercourt to discuss their care needs, but other people could not remember if they had been involved.

Staff involved people in conversations about their day to day care. There were clear assessments covering different aspects of care including communication, physical and mental health, and daily living. These included specialist input,when required, for example the speech and language therapy team. A revised welcome pack provided essential information which helped explain the assessment process as well as an introduction to the home and what staff could offer.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were positive about the food, with one person saying, “You never go hungry here.” Relatives told us how their parent’s tastes had changed as their dementia progressed which was recognised and catered for. They said the staff had got their relative “down to a T.” A staff member said, “And we do have that time to assist people with food.”

The service was part of a research project with Exeter University into older adults social care. The focus of the research was older people’s experience of different types of meal provision. This made staff aware of best practice at mealtimes including creating a calm atmosphere. A staff member said, “No-one is rushed and we have staff who sit with people and also one staff member makes sure everyone has everything they need.”

The Summercourt chef worked with an external company and provided feedback from people when a particular dish was not enjoyed. The chef monitored the replacement meal so they could judge if this was popular, or if people were choosing the alternative option. They described how people were provided with a menu and weekly orders made to the external company.

Care plans contained pertinent information, for example a description of dysphagia to remind staff of the individual’s risk of choking. People’s care plans also contained detailed information about risks and food allergies. The chef had built a good working relationship with the external food provider to ensure people with special dietary requirements had appropriate choices. The chef had completed a range of food related training and understood the importance of ensuring people were served food safe for them to eat, for example the texture and consistency of meals. Staff followed specialist guidance, including recommendations by the Speech and Language Therapy Team (SALT)for safe eating and drinking, and good practice approach to supporting people with meals.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

The registered manager and deputy manager met regularly with staff throughout the day to ensure everyone on each shift was up to date with people’s current needs. During one of these meetings, we saw staff were engaged and wanting to share new information to help all the team meet the changing needs of people. For example, a person’s reduced mobility.

People benefited from a close staff team who worked hard to provide the best support possible by good information sharing.Staff reflected on people’s changing moods and considered the cause and how they could support them if they were feeling low. They showed awareness of people’s personal histories and how events, such as bereavement, might impact on their engagement with others. Staff understood their role in recognising people’s experience, including loss. The staff group had a strong understanding of each person’s needs, which contributed to consistent care and stable routines.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff ensured people had access to community services, some of whom visited people at Summercourt. For example, a visiting dentist and optician. Families described how they were kept up to date. For example, they said, “(The registered manager) emails me and keeps me up to date on mum’s appointments. A care assistant takes mum to hospital as I do not drive, and I meet her there” and “They always ring me to tell me if she’s under the weather.”

People had access to a full range of health services, and staff helped them attend appointments and understand treatment plans. Care was adapted following changes in health, such as mobility difficulties or mental health needs, with evidence of prompt referrals to the GP to request specialist help.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There was good communication between staff so people’s care and treatment were regularly monitored to improve outcomes for people. For example, the staff team recognised one person’s mobility had declined which raised their risk of pressure damage on their skin. The person’s care plan was updated and their care needs reviewed. Additional monitoring was in place to check their skin, with regular repositioning, and emphasis on maintaining a good diet and regular drinks.

Staff respected people’s decisions, and relatives confirmed staff worked closely with them when consent or best‑interest decisions were required. Staff were confident about escalating safeguarding or capacity concerns to external agencies when needed. A revised welcome pack provided essential information which helped explain consent, as well as an introduction to the home and what staff could offer.

The service always sought people’s consent in line with legislation and good practice. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act and described how they presumed capacity, offered choices, and adapted their approach to help people understand decisions. Records showed when people did not have capacity for specific decisions, their relatives were asked to provide copies of lasting power of attorney documents to ensure people’s legal rights were protected.