• Care Home
  • Care home

Somerforde Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2-3 Forde Park, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 1DE (01626) 361786

Provided and run by:
Somerforde Limited

All Inspections

23 May 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Somerforde Limited is a residential care home that provides personal care for up to 30 people aged 65 and over. There were 28 people living there at the time of the inspection. The service is in a large house, set in its own grounds, over three floors.

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

People felt safe in the company of staff. One person told us, “It’s amazing here.” We observed positive interactions between people and staff, and it was evident close relationships had been formed. Safeguarding systems and processes were in place to protect people and staff knew how to identify and report concerns. The service was adhering to current UK Government guidance relating to the management of Covid-19.

The service environment was maintained. There was a comprehensive governance system in place to monitor both the quality of service people received and to ensure the service was safe. There was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs and staff said this enabled them to provide high quality of care. New staff were recruited safely. Risks to people were identified and mitigated, medicines were managed safely, and the service was clean and followed good infection control practices.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. There were systems in place that ensured people who were deprived of their liberty were done so with the appropriate legal authority through an application process with the local authority.

People, their relatives and staff gave very positive feedback about the registered manager and the impact they had on the service. We also received positive comments on the quality of care people received. There were systems to obtain feedback from people, their relatives and staff. Quality monitoring systems included audits, observation of staff practice and regular checks of the environment to ensure people received optimal care. Good relationships had been built with external healthcare professionals and the local community.

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 (published 1 April 2020).

At our inspection in May 2019, we recommended that the provider reviewed their medicines management processes and adopted best practice guidance. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

11 February 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Somerforde Limited is a residential care home that provides personal and nursing care to 30 people aged 65 and over. There were 28 people living there at the time of the inspection. The service is in a large house, set in its own grounds, over three floors.

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

The provider and registered manager were working to improve the management and culture at the service. A comprehensive quality assurance programme had been introduced, and a review of job roles and responsibilities had improved monitoring and accountability. There was an open, transparent and positive culture at the service. Staff told us they felt valued and part of a dedicated team.

People told us staff were kind and they felt safe. This was confirmed in feedback from relatives.

Staff were recruited safely, and safeguarding processes were in place to help protect people from abuse. Risks associated with people's care had been assessed and guidance was in place for staff to follow.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of suitably trained and competent staff. There had been a lot of changes in the staff team, however this was now stabilising and recruitment and retention were improving.

People were supported to engage in activities of their choice, which maximised their quality of life.

Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity, enabling them to make choices and have as much control and independence as possible. Staff ensured people were supported with their communication, which meant they had a voice.

People received their medicines safely, and in the way prescribed for them. The provider had good systems to manage safeguarding concerns, accidents, infection control and environmental safety.

Staff worked effectively with external health and social care professionals to meet people’s healthcare and nutritional needs.

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 (published 16 May 2019).

Why we inspected

We undertook this targeted inspection to check on specific concerns that had been raised about the safety and management of the service. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains Good.

CQC are currently trialling targeted inspections, to measure their effectiveness in following up on a Warning Notice or other specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Please see the Safe and Well Led sections of this full report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Somerforde Ltd on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

26 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Somerforde Limited is a residential care home that provides personal and nursing care to 22 people aged 65 and over. The service is in a large house, set in its own grounds, over three floors. It is in the Devon town of Newton Abbott and overlooks a mature park.

People’s experience of using this service:

• At our last inspection Somerforde Limited was rated requires improvement and we found two breaches of regulation relating to safe care and treatment and good governance. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of regulations.

• Overall medicines were managed safely, however some further improvements were required to improve recording. These issues were addressed during the inspection and after the inspection we were sent information to show how the changes had been embedded within staff practice. and after the inspection we were sent information to show the service had resolved them.

• People were supported by caring staff that enjoyed coming to work in the service and knew people well.

• Care plans were person centred and captured preferences and people’s histories. Staff tailored their support to how people liked it.

• People told us they felt safe and happy in the service. Relatives said they were happy their family members were living there.

• Staff were aware of how to report any safeguarding concerns and had become more confident in identifying deteriorating health, and referring onwards to health care professionals

• The environment had undergone improvements with the whole service being refurbished. Environmental checks were undertaken regularly. We identified that window restrictors did not meet best practise guidance so the provider addressed this on the day of inspection.

• People were asked for consent before care was provided. People were offered choice and control over their day.

• Staff were supported through supervision and training and the provider and registered manager now had a robust quality assurance system.

We have recommended that the service review how they manage medicines in line with NICE guidelines.

Rating at last inspection: The rating at the last inspection was requires improvement.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will monitor the service on an ongoing basis and re-inspect according to our schedule. We may inspect sooner if we receive information of concern.

16 January 2018

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 16 and 17 January 2018.

Somerforde 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.

Somerforde is a large detached property set within its own grounds and is registered to provide accommodation for up to 24 older people who require nursing or personal care. The home cannot provide nursing care. Accommodation is provided over two floors in one adapted building, a passenger lift provides access between floors. On the day of our inspection 20 people were living at the home.

There was 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.

When we completed our previous inspection in November 2015 we awarded an overall rating of 'Good'. During this inspection on 16 and 17 January 2018 we found a number of concerns relating to the key questions safe and well led. Therefore, for this inspection the service has been awarded the overall rating of 'Requires Improvement'. This is the first time the service has been rated 'Requires Improvement'.

People were not always protected from the risk of avoidable harm. Risks to people's health and wellbeing were not always identified in people's care plans, and risk management plans were not always in place to instruct staff on how they should care for people safely. Where risks had been identified, action had been taken to minimise the risk, such as using pressure relieving mattresses. However, there was no guidance in care plans or risk assessments to instruct staff on what pressure the mattresses should be set at and there was no system in place to ensure mattresses were set at the correct setting.

Where risk management plans were in place, such as; repositioning charts and topical medicines application charts, we saw they had not been completed consistently and we could not be sure from the records that people had received the care they needed.

The accident and incident monitoring system was not robust. We found accidents or incidents relating to people had not always been documented by staff. Therefore, the registered manager was not in a position to investigate further to ensure actions were followed through to reduce the risk of incidents occurring. Accidents and incidents had not been audited and no analysis of accidents or incidents had taken place since November 2017 to look for patterns or trends.

Medicine audits were being undertaken; however these were not always effective. We found that whilst medicines were being administered safely, the arrangements in place to manage reordering of medicines and stock control meant there was a risk that people's medicines might not be available when they needed them. Medicines audits had not identified concerns, such as inaccurate stock, temperature monitoring of medicines storage and medicines not being dated once opened.

The registered manager had quality assurance and governance systems to ensure procedures were in place to assess, monitor, and improve the quality and safety of the services provided at Somerforde. We found the registered manager used a variety of systems to monitor the home. However, governance systems had not identified a number of concerns we found at this inspection.

Following the inspection we received a report from the registered manager describing how they had responded to the concerns and what actions they had taken to address the issues. Medicines administration and stock replenishing systems and the monitoring of risks and falls have been strengthened and any issues dealt with. Robust management oversight is now in place to ensure good practice within the service.

People were consulted about their care to ensure wishes and preferences were met. We saw people's individual needs were assessed and person centred care plans were developed to identify what care and support they required. However, for one person an initial assessment had been completed but a comprehensive care plan, including assessment of risks, had not been completed at the time of the inspection, despite them having been admitted six days before. This meant there was a risk the person would not receive person centred care that was appropriate, met their needs and reflected their personal preferences. We have made a recommendation to the provider about care planning systems.

Care plans contained information about people’s specific communication needs, any barriers to communication and how staff could help people communicate. We saw that staff did not always respond to these needs in a timely way. For example, a relative told us their family member lost their hearing aid several weeks ago, they told us, “I’ve raised it with the deputy manager as the registered manager has been away, but nothing’s been done.” We spoke to the registered manager about this and they acted immediately.

People told us they felt safe living at Somerforde. One person told us “It feels safe here. I’ve lived here for some time now and it’s improved quite a lot recently.” Another said, “I haven’t lived here for more than a few months, but they’ve been very enjoyable months and I feel much safer now than I did living alone in my house” People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff understood how to keep people safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place to help protect people from harm and staff understood their responsibilities to do so and to report any concerns.

People spoke highly of the staff and said that they were caring and kind. People's comments included, “I am very well cared for. Nothing is too much trouble for the staff” and “I like living here, it suits me in every way.” The home had a calm and relaxed feel. We observed positive and caring relationships between people and staff. We saw staff treated people with respect and in a kind and compassionate way. People's privacy and dignity was respected by staff. People were able to choose what they wanted to do and were supported to maintain their independence as much as possible.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The home worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and the registered manager completed appropriate documentation to evidence this. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We looked at recruitment processes and found that staff had been recruited safely. Staff told us they were well supported in their role and received appropriate training and professional development. Staff attended mandatory training in a range of subjects and also had the opportunity to attend other training courses to ensure staff were able to meet the specific care needs of the people who lived in the home.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff. During our inspection we observed call bells were answered promptly and staff responded to people in a timely manner. Staff said there were enough staff to care for people and keep them safe.

A variety of activities were arranged for people living at the home which provided stimulation and social interaction. People told us they enjoyed the activities on offer. One person told us, “There’s always plenty to keep you occupied here. One lady organises events and trips as well as social gatherings.” Another said, “I look forward to the activities, it’s history group today and I won’t miss that.”

People told us they enjoyed the food and were happy with the quality and quantity of food provided. Comments included, “The food here is wonderful. Always plenty of it and a super choice”, “The food here is impressive in its quality and variety” and “The food here is consistently good. In fact let me correct that, it’s consistently very good.” We observed people's lunchtime experience and saw it was a very relaxed sociable experience. People were offered a choice of meals and we observed a staff showing people the different choices that were on offer. People's nutritional needs were assessed and the home responded appropriately to any nutritional concerns.

People were supported to maintain good health and staff ensured they received appropriate and timely healthcare support. Appropriate referrals were made to other care professionals if a need was identified such as dieticians and the Speech and Language Therapy Service.

People were able to enjoy a clean comfortable homely environment. The home was undergoing a full re-decoration and improvement programme inside and out. The provider told us they wanted to create a home to be proud of so that people would feel looked after in a cared for, comfortable home. People were involved in the refurbishment and were encouraged to choose their room decoration. We saw that people had personalised their rooms with pictures and objects that were personal to them.

We found two breaches of regulation. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

24 and 26 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Somerforde Ltd is a care home registered to provide accommodation for up to 24 older persons who require nursing or personal care. Nursing care is not provided by the home. The community nursing team provide nursing care and support when required. Some people were living at the home for short term respite care with a view to returning to their own home.

This inspection took place on 24 and 26 November 2015 and the first day was unannounced. There were 22 people living at the home at the time of the inspection.

One of the two company directors held the position of registered manager and was in day to day control of the running of the home. The other director attended the home daily. 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.

We received a mixed response when we asked people their views on the quality of the meals provided by the home. The majority of people said the food was “good”, “very nice” and “it’s lovely, too much sometimes.” Five of the thirteen people we spoke with said it was not to their liking. We discussed these findings with the registered manager who showed us the audits the home had previously undertaken to gain people’s views. We saw the results of these were all positive. However, they gave assurances they would speak with each person again to ascertain their views about how to improve their enjoyment of the meals.

People spoke highly of the care they received. They told us they felt safe and were supported by kind and caring staff. One person said, “yes, it’s especially nice here” and another said, “this is wonderful. The best place in England.” A relative told us “I can relax knowing mum is safe and cared for.”

The registered manager said, “residents’ wishes are at the forefront of their care to allow them to live their lives as fully as possible.” We saw risks to people’s safety and well-being were well managed and people’s rights were respected. Care needs and the support and assistance required to meet these was well documented and staff received clear guidance about how to keep people safe. People were involved in planning their care and reviewing how well the home was meeting their needs. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and their preferences. People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were managed safely.

Recruitment practices were safe and staff were employed in sufficient numbers to provide a safe and caring home. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home. They all said, “I love working here” or “I love my job.” Staff had completed training in a variety of training topics such as person-centred care, nutrition, diabetes and dementia care as well as health and safety topics to give them the skills they needed to meet individual care needs.

People had regular access to healthcare professionals. When concerns about a person’s health were identified, staff sought professional advice promptly. Community nurses told us they had confidence in the staff’s ability to care for people well.

Leisure and social activities were planned to provide meaningful engagement for people. However, the involvement of people who may be at risk of social isolation needs to be better recorded.

People, relatives and staff told us the home was well managed. There were clear lines of responsibility in the home and staff worked well as a team. The registered manager was described as “wonderful, really supportive” and people also praised the deputy managers. People said if they had concerns they were confident these would be listened to and dealt with promptly.

People told us the home was always clean and fresh smelling. The premises and equipment were well maintained. There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of care. The registered manager had audited care records, policies, the environment, and staffing. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views for improving the services provided at the home.

12 November 2013

During a routine inspection

There were 23 people living at Somerforde at the time of our inspection. We spoke with eight people who lived at the home and also spoke with two care workers a senior care worker and the providers of which one was the manager of the home. At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post.

We found that people's consent had been obtained for care and treatment provided to them by the service.

People who lived at the home told us they were well looked after and were happy. One person said "You'd have to go a long way to find anywhere better".

People had been protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

People told us that they felt safe and knew what to do if they had concerns. One person said "We have residents' meetings when we can raise any concerns we may have. If there are any urgent concerns we can talk to any of the staff. "People told us that they would not hesitate to report any issues to any member of staff. One person said, "I would complain if there was ever anything to complain about".

4 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We (the Care Quality Commission) last visited Somerforde in March 2012 because some concerns had been raised with us. At that visit we found that Somerforde was not meeting one or more essential standards and that improvements were needed. During this inspection we looked to see if these improvements had been made and we found that they had.

People that we spoke with were very happy with the care being provided. One person told us "I'm very happy here. I come and go as I please". Another person told us they were "Thrilled to bits ' can't believe it!".

We spoke with six people who were able to tell us about their experiences of living at the home. One person told us they had visited several homes before they came into Somerforde. They told us that they were really happy and that "It feels as if I have been here forever". People told us that staff supported and helped them when they needed assistance. They said that they felt well supported by staff and that there was always someone around to help them if they needed anything.

During our visit we heard staff speaking with people in a respectful and caring way. We also saw that staff were friendly and patient in their approach. People appeared relaxed and comfortable in their interactions with staff.

All the staff we spoke with told us that they felt supported by the providers. They also told us that they received regular supervision.

27 March 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

The home was last visited by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (the predecessor organisation of the Care Quality Commission) in October 2008.

We (The Care Quality Commission) had received concerns stating that Staff had been told that they must get a certain number of people living at the home up each morning. This meant that people were having to be woken as early as 5.30am in order for staff to get everyone up. We were also told the food at the home was terrible, that people cannot raise issues with the owners, that people are being admitted to the home whose needs cannot be met, that staff are too busy to spend 'social time' with people and that staff receive little training.

We arrived at the home at just before 7am and found two people up and sitting in the dining room. Night staff told us that both people had been awake when they had gone to get them up and that they had been in the dining room since about 6.30. Both people had a drink and bread and butter in front of them. Neither of these people could tell us if they had wanted to be got up, although their care plans did indicate that they normally woke around 7.00am.

We looked at the care files for three people living at the home. We saw that their preferences relating to times of getting up and going to bed as well as food likes and dislikes were recorded. The two people that we spoke with knew they had a care plan and what was in it.

We saw no evidence that the home was unable to meet the needs of anyone living there. The provider told us that they had often refused to accept people into the home if they felt their needs could not be met.

We saw a record of activities that showed an activity is available to people every afternoon, it also recorded who had attended the session. One person told us "there is always something going on".

The cook told us that people were always offered a choice of main meal at lunchtime. They told us that they made a list of items that were required and the owners then did the shopping. They were concerned that the majority of the food purchased was 'value' range and that sometimes quantities were limited. They told us that "it's the little extras that aren't there, that makes things special for people". They also said that they liked to make puddings themselves, but that these were often brought in 'ready made'. One person living at the home told us the food was "OK ' sometimes good and sometimes bad" but added that they were "a very fussy eater".

Staff told us and the owner confirmed that not all staff had received up to date training in relation to moving and handling. Staff also told us that they had not received training in caring for people with a dementia type illness. The provider told us that some staff had received training in these areas.