Summerfield Court

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People generally experienced care that was kind, compassionate and respectful. During our visits, staff were observed interacting positively with people, spending time chatting, offering reassurance and using humour appropriately. A person said, “Most of the staff on the unit who help us are caring and nice people.” Relatives also commented positively on staff’s attitude. One relative told us, “Generally, the staff are good. They relate to [person] well and have banter and a laugh with [person].”

We observed people appearing comfortable with staff and relaxed in shared areas. Staff supported to maintain their personal presentation and dignity. However, we observed some occasions where staff supported people without clearly explaining actions or seeking consent first, such as moving someone in a wheelchair without engaging them verbally. A few people also raised concerns about staff approach. One person commented, “One or 2 (staff) are a bit tricky, sometimes a bit patronising.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People told us staff knew what support they needed and what they could do for themselves. One person said, “They know what I am capable of. I just need help with certain things, like dressing.” However, we found gaps in personalised care planning and involvement from relatives. Relatives told us they were not always involved in care planning or reviews.

There was limited evidence that care plans consistently reflected people’s current goals, preferences or progress.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not supported to increase independence.

People were supported to make everyday choices, such as what to eat, when to take part in activities and how to spend their time. People told us, “I choose all my own meals, but I have a bit of help with cooking.” However, there were shortfalls in how independence and autonomy were promoted. For example, some people had planned goals around their involvement with maintaining their environment clean and tidy and preparing food. However, there was a lack of evidence that these had been regularly reviewed to show these goals were still current to people and meaningful for their desired rehabilitation and autonomy. Another person had restricted access to smoking and there was no evidence of how they had been supported to be involved in understanding and making decisions about this area.

A relative also expressed concern about people becoming more dependent; “[Person] used to get physio once a week and go for walks on their own. Now he doesn’t get any physio and his walking has suffered.”

Staff also described a lack of goal‑focused work to support people to move on or regain skills; one staff member told us, “There isn’t much attempt made to get people out and into assisted living; no goals being aimed for anymore.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People described staff as responsive and available when needed, for example, call bells were answered promptly. One person told us, “If I need them, I find them and they help.”

During our site visit, we observed staff responding in a timely way to requests for personal care, mobility support and nutrition or hydration. People appeared comfortable seeking help and staff responded in a timely way.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff experiences were mixed. Some staff described feeling supported and welcomed, but other staff reported low morale due to repeated management changes and staff turnover. A staff member told us, “We have had 8 managers in 4 years, the standards aren’t as good nowadays,” and added, “It’s just a job to me now and it has never been like that before.”

Relatives and people told us about the impact of staff turnover on continuity of care. One relative commented, “At one time you could get to know the staff, now we don’t know a lot of the faces.” The management team were visible during the assessment, and toldus about the support in place for staff and additional support planned to improve staff’s wellbeing and competence.