We carried out a review of the data available to us about SummerLodge 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 SummerLodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Summerlodge is a residential care home providing personal care without nursing for up to six people with learning disabilities. At the time of inspection four people were using the service. The service is set over three floors in a residential area.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
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 and to learn lessons from accidents and incidents. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so.
People were cared for and supported by staff who had received the appropriate training.
The 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.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People were supported to eat and drink enough to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to other health professionals were made when required. The environment was well maintained and suitable for people.
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.
People and their relatives and advocates were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner. People were supported to make plans for the end of their life.
The manager had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.
Rating at last inspection The last rating for this service was Good (last report published 11/03/2017).
Why we inspected: This was a comprehensive inspection.
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.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Summerlodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
The service provides accommodation and support for up to six people with learning disabilities. There were five people living at the service at the time of our inspection. Due to their complex needs people found it difficult to communicate with us verbally. However people were able to communicate with sounds and gestures.
At our last inspection the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
The service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. 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 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.
We inspected Summer Lodge on the 14 May 2015.
The service provides accommodation and support for up to six people with learning disabilities. There were five people living at the service at the time of our inspection. Due to their complex needs people found it difficult to communicate with us verbally. However people were able to communicate with sounds and gestures. To help us gather views we also spoke with people’s relatives.
The service has 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.
People were cared for by staff that had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks were completed. There were enough staff available to support people. People's care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Records were regularly updated and staff were provided with the information they needed to meet people’s needs.
Staff and the manager were able to explain to us what they would do to keep people safe and how they would protect their rights. Staff had been provided with training in safeguarding adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People were relaxed in the company of staff. Staff were able to demonstrate they knew people well. Staff were attentive to people's needs and treated people with dignity and respect. People who used the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them; these activities were diverse to meet people’s social needs.
The service worked well with other professionals to ensure that people's health needs were met. Where appropriate, support and guidance was sought from health care professionals, including people’s G.Ps and speech and language therapist.
Relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint; any complaints were resolved efficiently and quickly. The manager had a number of ways of gathering views on the service including holding meetings with people, staff and talking with relatives.
The manager and provider carried out a number of quality monitoring audits to ensure the service was running effectively. These included audits on care files, medication management and the environment.
We found that people were cared for by staff who were aware of their needs and preferences. We saw that people were happy and relaxed. People were supported to access the community as they wished.
People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet. Although food charts were kept and were adequate for people's current needs it was felt that the current format of nutritional charts would not be robust enough, if someone had special nutritional requirements, as amount of food and fluid was not recorded.
The provider demonstrated through various documentation that there was good cooperation with other providers involved in people's care.
The premises were found to be shabby with areas requiring attention and repairs, however there was a scheme of works in place already to address these imminently, and additional issues highlighted during the inspection were added to the works list.
Staffing rotas demonstrated that there was sufficient staffing in place to meet the individual needs and requirements of people using the service.
We found that the provider had systems in place to assess the quality of service provided, such as, spot checks.
Due to the diverse communication needs of people using the service and the off site planned activities we were unable to spend much time in direct conversation with people. However we were able to use observation and documentation to determine on the day of the visit how their needs were being met and whether they were happy living at SummerLodge.
Two of the people we spoke with were happy as they were going out on an activity, they spoke about members of staff in a relaxed manner, asking other staff whether they were also coming on the visit. Some of the people living at SummerLodge where unable to participate in certain activities due to their level of mobility, the manager confirmed that activities were either adapted so that they could take part in some of it, or they went to different activities to suit their needs. For example, one person couldn't walk very far so when staff went out for a walk with that person it was much shorter.