You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

Summerlands is a service for up to nine people with learning disabilities and /or autistic spectrum disorder who may also have behaviours that can be challenging. The service is a single storey property close to the village of Charing. There were eight people living at the service when we inspected.

Summerlands 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 care 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 and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager at the service who was supported by a deputy 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.

At the last inspection on 18 November 2016, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements related to concerns about applying the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, staff understanding the visions of the service, care plans relating to health not giving the guidance required. Also quality auditing systems used by the provider had not identified the shortfalls found at our inspection, issues about people receiving the correct level of one to one support and notifications had not always been submitted when required and this action has been completed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this. People were supported by staff who knew them well and who adapted their support to meet the needs of each person. Staff used a range of communication tools to enable people to understand decisions and express themselves. People were treated with kindness and compassion and in a way which promoted their dignity and privacy.

People were involved in developing their own care plans; this led to documents which reflected the person’s personality alongside their needs. Care plans gave staff the information they required to support people in line with their preferences and in a way, which met their needs. Staff had worked with people to develop ways to become more independent. People took part in a range of activities, which they told us they enjoyed. People’s health needs were managed well, staff had regular communication with health professionals and any advice given was incorporated in to people’s care plans. People’s medicines were managed safely and in the way they preferred. People chose what they wanted to eat and when, staff encouraged people to take part in preparation of their meals and drinks. People had been spoken to about their wishes for end of life care and plans were in place which detailed their choices.

People were supported by staff who had the training and support required to enable them to carry out their roles. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities in relation to reporting concerns. Staffing levels were based around people’s needs and activities and staff had been recruited using processes which ensured they were suitable to support people.

Risks to people and the environment were identified, assessed and plan were in place to mitigate risks. Accidents and incidents were analysed and reviewed for learning by the registered manager and centrally by the provider. Staff understood the principles of infection control and personal p

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was safe.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and how to report any concerns.

Risks to people and the environment were identified, assessed and plans were in place, which gave staff the guidance required to minimise risks.

There were suitable numbers of staff and they had been recruited safely.

People�s medicines were managed safely by competent staff.

Staff were aware of the need for infection control measures and worked in a way which minimised the risk of infection.

Accidents and incidents were analysed and reviewed for learning.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was effective.

People�s support was developed and delivered in line with good practice and legislation.

Staff had the training and support required to meet people�s needs.

People were encouraged to choose foods which met their health needs and could eat when they wanted.

Staff used effective systems to work as a team to provide consistent support for people.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals as required and staff understood how to support people�s long term health conditions.

When required adaptations had been made to the premises.

The service had a positive attitude towards peoples� capacity and staff encouraged people to make informed choices.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and who treated them with kindness.

People were encouraged to use a range of communication tools to express themselves.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care plans were person centred and gave clear guidance to staff about how they wanted to be supported.

People were encouraged to raise concerns in a variety of ways and these were addressed appropriately.

People had been supported to think about end of life support and their wishes had been recorded.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a clear vision for the service which was understood and shared by all staff.

Systems supported staff to understand their roles and notifications had been submitted when required.

Feedback from people and other stakeholders was requested on a regular basis and acted upon.

There was a focus on continual improvement, which was supported by learning from regular audits.

Staff worked in partnership with other agencies to meet the needs of people.