You are here

Summer Wood Residential Care Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 26 October 2018

This inspection took place on 20 September 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice so we could be sure the right people would be available when we visited the service. At the last inspection we found three breaches of the regulations regarding risk assessment, recruitment practices, and records and the service was rated as requires improvement in safe, responsive and well-led. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do, and by when, to improve the key questions of safe, responsive and well led to at least good. At this inspection we found there had been improvements and the breach of regulations had been met and the service is now rated as good.

Summer Wood Residential Care Home is a ‘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. The service provides accommodation and personal care to up to four people living with a learning disability.

The 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 using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The service continued to be well managed by the provider, long standing registered manager and staff team.

As far as possible, people were protected from harm and abuse. Staff knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and what they should do if they thought someone was a risk. The home was clean, and people were protected from the risks of poor infection and prevention control.

There were enough experienced and suitable staff to support people to stay safe and to meet people’s identified needs and preferences. Staff were supported with training, supervision and appraisals to help them develop the skills they needed to provide good quality care. Staff reported incidents and accidents properly, and if these did occur, the registered manager made sure they were investigated.

People were supported to eat and drink enough. Food was nutritious and people gave us positive feedback about the choice and quality of food. People accessed the healthcare they needed to remain well, such as the GP or practice nurse, and their medicines were managed safely.

People were able to express their choices and preferences and these were respected and promoted by staff. People led the lives they wanted to and staff supported people to go out or join in activities in the home in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to maintain contact with those people that were important to them.

People experienced compassionate care that met their needs, and were supported by kind, caring staff. People had their privacy and dignity respected, and staff knew what to do to make sure people’s independence was promoted. People experienced person centred care and were supported to be involved in their care reviews as much as they wanted to be. People had their care needs regularly reviewed and updated. The building and environment met the needs and preferences of the people who lived there.

People were asked for their consent before any care was given, and staff made sure they always acted in people’s best interests. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safegu

Inspection areas



Updated 26 October 2018

The service was safe. The provider had a process in place to make sure appropriate checks would be completed when new staff were employed to work at the service.

As far as possible, people were protected from the risks of harm, abuse or discrimination. Risk assessments and risk management plans were in place and helped to keep people safe.

People�s medicines were safely managed and there were enough staff on duty to meet people�s needs.

The environment and equipment was safely maintained and infection control practices were safe. Incidents and accidents were well reported and investigated.



Updated 26 October 2018

The service was effective. People had their needs and choices assessed and met. People were cared for by staff that had received appropriate training and had the right skills to meet their needs.

People�s nutrition and hydration needs were met, and food was homemade and nutritious.

Staff asked for people�s consent before providing care and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People�s health and well-being needs were met. People were supported to have access to healthcare services when they needed them.



Updated 26 October 2018

The service was caring. People were supported by staff who were kind and compassionate.

People�s privacy and dignity were respected and their independence was promoted.

People were supported to make their own decisions and choices about how to live their lives.



Updated 26 October 2018

The service was responsive. People�s care plans provided staff with information about their preferences and support needs and people were involved in planning their own care.

People were asked for their feedback about the service and this was acted on. There was a complaints procedure in place. Complaints and concerns raised had been investigated and action taken to put things right.



Updated 26 October 2018

The service was well-led. Systems and processes for monitoring quality had improved and records were accurate and up to date.

There was good leadership and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

People and staff had been asked about their views on the running of the service