Summercourt

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The registered manager knew the people in their care well, including their families and the people who were important to them. We received multiple compliments about the person centred culture they had created at the home by being a role model to their staff team. They formed a strong leadership team with the deputy manager whose own management skills were being supported and developed. The deputy manager’s lead role in overseeing medicines meant they had daily contact with people living at the home. This meant they worked alongside staff and could oversee staff practice and how the well-being of people was supported.

The registered manager was also supported by colleagues from the provider’s other care home, as well as the provider and newly appointed nominated individual. Good governance systems were in place, which had continued even when the registered manager had to spend time away from the home. Regular meetings, supervision and varied training meant the staff team were clear on the shared vision, strategy and culture of the service.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service benefited from capable, visible and compassionate leaders who showed a commitment to drive improvements. The registered manager knew each person living at the home well. This was apparent as we met with people living at the home who readily engaged in conversation with them.

All the relatives who contributed to the inspection told us how much confidence they had in the registered manager and the deputy manager. A relative said, “They lead a good team and are always friendly.” Other relatives told us the leadership team were “kind”, “approachable” and “considerate.”

Relatives described how the registered manager was there to support them, when they struggled to cope with their relative’s decline in mental or physical health, or their own life circumstances such as family illness or bereavement. Relatives said the registered manager gave them “confidence.” One relative dealing with a close bereavement, said they valued how “lovely and kind” the registered manager had been in supporting them to share this difficult news with a person living at the home.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There was a whistleblowing process. The registered manager and their staff team had built up a culture of trust. People and staff told us they felt heard and would be able to speak up about concerns if they needed to. Relatives said there was a survey sent to them, but they also felt able to provide direct feedback to the registered manager. Relatives said the registered manager was open and honest, for example, one said, “They don’t hide anything from us, and we’ve built a good relationship.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The registered manager recognised the different skills of the staff team and valued their contribution to ensuring the home was a safe and caring place to live. Staff told us they were well supported and were keen to share their feedback with us. For example, one said, “The management support is seriously good” and another staff member said the leadership team had “been so supportive and I’m so grateful.”

Staff shared life experiences with us and how the provider had supported them to continue to work by changing their roles or responsibilities. This had helped retain experienced and skilled staff members in the team. The provider showed through their discussions with us and their actions how they valued the diversity of their staff team. This included recognising staff members’ potential and providing career opportunities for them within the organisation.

Training was valued and made accessible for all members of the staff team. For example, a staff member said, “One thing that is a benefit of e-learning is that our staff have the option to have it in their own language and communication is all important and when our international staff first started, we ensured all could communicate with the residents.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Incidents, complaints, safeguarding concerns and feedback from people, relatives, staff and visitors were used to improve the service. Spot checks and observations of staff practice helped maintain standards and identify areas where staff needed additional support. Staff training was regularly reviewed to ensure practice was up to date.

Environmental checks, statutory servicing and refurbishment works showed the provider was investing in maintaining and continually improving the building. They invested in staff training, for example funding a Train the Trainer course for moving and handling. This meant the registered manager and deputy manager both had the skills to assess people’s needs when their needs changed. This was particularly important when people’s health deteriorated rapidly and they became dependent on equipment.

The provider had decided to step back from the central role of governance to have space to develop services. They had appointed an experienced person as the nominated individual, who had clear plans to build on the governance at the service. The nominated individual had already begun to improve information about the service and had plans on how to introduce new systems to improve overall governance across the provider’s services.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider had sustained established links with research organisations with the focus on improving outcomes for people living with dementia. For example, contributing to research into meals which included preparation style, nutrition, taste and enjoyment as well as choice.This research recognised the emotional significance of some elements of meals, such as the comfort gained from puddings, as well as their calorific value. The practice of care staff showed they recognised the value of meals both for health and well as emotional well-being, which meant they translated knowledge into their person centred approach.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider provided staff with the skills, knowledge and tools to provide care that followed best practice. They used their own academic and management background to develop their leadership teams’ skills. Learning was based on day to day practice at each of the provider’s services, where case studies were discussed to aid learning and development. Management teams were encouraged to learn from one another and recognise each other’s strengths.