We carried out a review of the data available to us about SummerHill on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about SummerHill, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The registered manager had followed guidance on infection control procedures to safely support people living at the service during the pandemic.
People and staff had regularly been tested for COVID-19 and where positive results had been returned the registered manager had acted quickly to support people and mitigate risks.
All staff had received training on how to properly use PPE and there were good systems set up in the service to support the donning and doffing of PPE.
Guidance had been implemented to allow where possible, for relatives to continue to visit people safely. Where visits were unable to go ahead video and telephone calls had been used.
People had been supported to continue to access healthcare, this had included visits from the GP and the practice nurse. Staff had received additional training from the district nurse team in monitoring people’s vital signs such as oxygen levels and blood pressure. This information could be provided to the GP when needed.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
The service had a registered manager. 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.
The service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.
The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. 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. People were supported to eat and drink enough as to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to other health professionals were made when required.
The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed choices.
The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis and also when there was a change in care needs. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The registered manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner.
The service was well-led. The service had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.
This inspection took place on 9 November 2015.
SummerHill provides accommodation for up to six people who have a learning disability. There were six people living in the service on the day of our inspection, but only three were at 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.
Staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s assessed needs safely. Staff were well trained and supported. There were sufficient staff who had been recruited safely to ensure that they were fit to work with people.
People showed us that they felt safe and comfortable living at SummerHill. Staff had a good understanding of how to protect people from the risk of harm. They had been trained and had access to guidance and information to support them in maintaining good practice.
Risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and the service had support plans and risk assessments in place to ensure people were cared for safely. People received their medication as prescribed and there were safe systems in place for receiving, administering and disposing of medicines.
The manager and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) but had not had the need to make any applications. DoLS are a code of practice to supplement the main Mental Capacity Act 2005. These safeguards protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there are restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed by appropriately trained professionals.
People were supported to have sufficient amounts of food and drink to meet their needs. People’s care needs had been assessed and catered for. The support plans provided staff with good information about how to meet people’s individual needs, understand their preferences and how to care for them safely. The service monitored people’s healthcare needs and sought advice and guidance from healthcare professionals when needed.
Staff were kind and caring and treated people respectfully. People participated in a range of activities that met their needs. Families were made to feel welcome and people were able to receive their visitors at a time of their choosing. Staff ensured that people’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to deal with any complaints or concerns.
One person told us, 'The staff are good.'
We found that the provider had arrangements for recording when consent had been given and discussed care with relatives when a person was deemed to lack capacity.
We saw that people's care and treatment was planned and reviewed with their involvement, wherever possible. Risks to people's health, welfare and safety were identified and well managed. Our inspection and discussions with people showed us that the service was generally safe, responsive and caring.
We found that there were systems in place to ensure that the premises were safe and suitable for use.
Staff were well supported and had received sufficient training to support the needs of people using the service.
We found that there were systems in place to assess and improve the quality of service provision.
We saw that records relating to people using the service, staff and day to day running of the service were accurate and easily found.
We were able to speak to everyone using the service. People told us that they felt safe and that they couldn't think of anything that could be done better. People told us that they enjoyed living at SummerHill, that there were sufficient activities and outings, and that they felt able to do what they wanted to. Two people told us that they had decided how they wanted their room decorated in terms of wall colour, furnishings and lights.
We saw that people were treated in a respectful manner and included in activities when they wanted to be. We saw that staff were responsive to people's needs both physical and emotional. Care records gave staff sufficient information to be able to do this.
We found that generally the environment was clean, however there was some attention to detail that was lacking in terms of cleaning the bathrooms. Staff were knowledgeable about infection control measures to take both daily and when a person had an infection.
We found recruitment processes were good and took into account people using the services views on prospective employees.
Generally people felt able to voice any issues with the service provided but occasionally informal complaints handling may not have been as good as it should be. We found some minor issues which were either dealt with immediately or plans were made to deal with them.