Summerfield Rest Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They apologised when things went wrong and listened to concerns about safety, investigating safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider used incidents and complaints to reflect on what went wrong and identified actions they could take to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. These were discussed with staff in team meetings and supervisions to ensure their understanding and promote best practice.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. Staff were familiar with each person which helped prevent problems and reduced distress for people and relatives. Safety was monitored and continuity of care was maintained during changes or moves. For example, the registered manager identified the environment and staffing levels were no longer for suitable for a person’s changing needs. They subsequently changed their assessment process to better identify changes and ensure the correct level of care could be provided.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff worked to protect people from harm, abuse and neglect. Staff understood safeguarding and felt confident raising concerns. People and relatives said they felt safe because staff were always watching and responded quickly when something happened. Relatives said staff reduced their worry and made them feel confident family members were protected. One relative told us, "Trust and the knowledge that the staff do care and are always vigilant keeping my [family member] safe help me sleep at night."

We found the provider was following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They assessed people’s mental capacity and where required applied for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). A DoLS is a legal process that allows a care provider to place necessary and least restrictive limits on a person’s freedom when they lack mental capacity, but only after assessment and approval by the local authority to ensure their safety and best interests. The provider had recently reviewed the process for recording mental capacity assessments and introduced a new format that better showed how people were involved in the process.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care that supported people to do what mattered most to them. Relatives felt staff cared and were proactive, but also said updates helped them understand what actions were taken. One relative said, "From a fear that my [family member] might fall during the night and be badly hurt, to the safety comfort and care in Summerfield is so reassuring.” However, some risks had not been identified before the first visit such as window restrictors on all windows where risk was evident or for one set of stairs where a magnetic lock was faulty. The registered manager acted quickly to put risk assessments in place and to fix the areas of concern. Some care plans for people who showed signs of distress needed to have clearer detail about triggers and how best for staff to respond to try and prevent the distress escalating. Again, the registered manager accepted this and put plans in place to review this area of the care plans.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment and did not always make sure equipment and spaces fully supported safe care. The building was older and in need of repair and/or redecoration in places due to poorly laid and steep flooring and scuffed walls. These posed trip hazards to people with mobility needs. The provider had made some improvements and all other required areas of damage were included on their improvement plan with works scheduled in. People and relatives told us they could see repairs were underway. One relative said they welcomed seeing improvements already happening.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified and experienced staff who received support and development. Staff worked together and with volunteers and external professionals well to provide safe care that met individual needs. There were safe recruitment processes in place to ensure staff and volunteers recruited were suitable for their roles. People told us staff were around when needed and relatives said staff were always alert. The registered manager reviewed workloads, especially in catering and housekeeping and agreed further additions to staffing or staffing hours to better meet demand. Recruitment was ongoing to strengthen the team further. The provider gave staff access to regular training and there was a clear induction programme in place. Staff received regular supervision and checks on their competency, offering development opportunities were required or requested.
 

The provider assessed and managed infection risks and controlled the chance of infection spreading. The environment was clean and deep cleaning schedules were in place. Staff had plenty of protective equipment and knew how to use it properly. Areas where there was damage to floors and walls increased infection risks and required repair. Records showed these were already included in maintenance plans and works were scheduled.

The provider made sure medicines were safe, met people’s needs and were given in ways people understood and agreed to. Staff received training and checks on their administration and understanding of medicines. Body maps were in place for pain patches or creams so that staff were aware where to place them on people’s bodies. Protocols were in place for as and when required medicines to ensure they were offered at the right time and in the correct doses to be beneficial. Staff handled medicines safely and interactions with people were calm and respectful, always seeking consent and explaining what the medicine was for. People said medicines were usually on time. People were supported to have regular reviews of their medicines with the GP and the provider ensured short term medicines such as anti-biotics could be resourced locally and quickly.