You are here

Summer Wood Residential Care Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 27 March 2013
Date of Publication: 20 April 2013
Inspection Report published 20 April 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 27 March 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. For example, we reviewed two care and support plans and saw that plans contained personal information such as the persons GP, next of kin and other family members. We saw detailed initial assessments and a personal profile related to each person. The plans had been checked and updated monthly by the manager in order to ensure that any changing needs were idnetifed and responded to.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare, based on the initial assessment and ongoing progress or changes. We saw that individual records contained detailed risk assessment tools in relation to daily living needs. For example, road safety when accessing the community risk and one related to the use of public transport had been identified with a clear and detailed plan of how to minimise this risk. We saw that each risk assessment was linked to the support plan and therefore staff were able to ensure that care and support was delivered in accordance with the information described.

We saw that the support identified in the plan had been followed by staff and that this was recorded in the daily notes. For example, we saw records in the daily notes that linked to the care plan in relation to a trip out to attend work experience at a local animal sanctuary that took place while we were visiting the service.

Records were seen to include evidence of multi-disciplinary notes from other people involved in the delivery of care, such as a medical specialist and the GP. We saw that health care appointments had been made where needed. This indicated to us that people were supported to obtain additional care to meet their individual needs.

During our visit we observed staff interacting with people in a positive and supportive way. People were supported to make use their personal computers, make choices about activities and go out of the home to attend college and leisure activities.

The staff we spoke with had a good understanding of people's needs and how to support them with their assessed needs. One person that had moved in from hospital told us "this is a very nice house we have everything we need." Another person told us how well she got on with the staff. One staff member told us how they enjoyed helping a person to improve their cooking skills and worked to promote their independence by encouraging people to access the local community.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, (part of a legal framework set out in the mental capacity (Act 2005) that aims to ensure that peoples human rights are protected in certain care settings when they are deprived of their liberty), were only used when it was considered to be in the person's best interest and we saw evidence of mental capacity

assessments in peoples care files.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies, ensuring that people were cared for safely. We saw the service emergency contingency plan that describes procedures for dealing with emergencies that could arise such as power failure, leaks or weather related issues.

Overall the evidence we reviewed we considered that the service could demonstrate how it ensured that people were provided with safe and effective care that met their individual needs.