Summerlands

Updated 10 November 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

This inspection took place on 16 October 2020 and was announced. The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

Updated 10 November 2020

This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 9 February.

Summerlands is a residential care home for up to 31 people older people. At the beginning of the inspection there were 28 people living at the home. Some of the people had dementia so had limited verbal communication. Summerlands is a care home over three floors with bedrooms on each one. There are communal areas such as a living room and dining room. The owners have spent time improving the surroundings including recently having the garden landscaped. There was still some work being undertaken at the time of inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

Since the last inspection there had been a change in registered manager and the owners had worked hard to ensure there were continual improvements at the home. These had been recognised by two members of staff receiving awards from the local authority to recognise the care and support they were delivering.

The owners promoted a drive to create an excellent care home by encouraging staff to identify new approaches and ways to have person led support. There was a strong emphasis on working with the community and empowering staff to champion different areas of care. These provided opportunities for people’s care to improve and promoted their well-being by being valued. There were occasions when the owners and registered manager went above and beyond to ensure people had received individualised care. Staff at all levels felt supported and were proud their work to improve the lives for people had been recognised.

The home had owners and management who strove to provide people with excellent care. People, visitors and staff told us the registered manager and the owners were excellent and had ensured the best care and support was provided. The registered manager and owners continually monitored the quality of the service and made improvements in accordance with people’s changing needs. When specialist knowledge was required the management brought in external agencies to assist with the auditing of the home.

People received good care from staff who knew them well and appreciated they were working in their home. Feedback from people, relatives and visitors to the home informed us about how well cared for they felt. Care and support was personalised to each person and being enhanced by using new systems they were introducing. This meant people were able to make choices about their day to day lives in line with their needs, hobbies and interests.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff and their cultural or religious needs were valued. People, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support they received. People who had specific end of life wishes had their preferences facilitated by staff to help provide a dignified death. The owners and staff were currently working towards a nationally recognised standard to further improve people’s end of life care.

The service provided to people was responsive to people’s individual needs. There was an activities coordinator who strove to get feedback from people about the activities they ran. There was a range of opportunities for people and their families to participate in. Activities considered people’s hobbies and interests and were personalised as much as possible.

Complaints were fully investigated and responded to in a timely manner. The registered manager and owners valued any concern a person or their relative raised. People and relatives felt there was an open atmosphere at the home where they could speak with the management. Their feedback was regularly sort through formal and informal opportunities.

There were suitable numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and to spend time socialising with them. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People received their medicines safely. People were protected from abuse because staff understood how to keep them safe and were sure action would be taken if any concerns were raised.

The home continued to ensure people received effective care. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People who required special diets had their needs met and meal times were treated as a social opportunity. Staff had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support people. People told us their healthcare needs were met and staff supported them to attend appointments. Two health care visitors were very complementary about how the home supported the people they saw.

Further information is in the detailed findings below