Summerfield Court

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 46 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service described itself as specialising in supporting people with acquired brain injuries, with a rehabilitative focus. However, our assessment findings showed limited evidence of people being supported to improve or maintain their independence, and examples where people had become more dependent over time without clear review of their care needs. Many people had lived at the service for extended periods, but care records did not consistently demonstrate rehabilitation or meaningful goal achievement. Managers confirmed the service was not operating as an active rehabilitation service, describing it instead as “slow‑stream” or long‑term support. Despite this, it was unclear how decisions about people’s rehabilitation potential were assessed, reviewed, or communicated.

Care plans lacked clear, measurable goals, and where goals existed, there was limited evidence they were followed. Some people had commissioned 1:1 hours and we found examples of lack of evidence of these being documented as provided.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Feedback from healthcare professionals was mixed. Some reported positive collaboration with staff in meeting people’s needs; but others indicated that professional therapeutic advice was not consistently embedded into daily practice. Concerns were also raised about management team not always acting as an effective liaison point between multidisciplinary team supporting people.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We found people were not always supported with accessible information particularly where English was not their first language. Trained interpreters were not always used for formal discussions, and staff were sometimes relied upon as translators, creating risks around consent and meaningful involvement of people to understand or influence care decisions.

Relatives told us information sharing was inconsistent. A relative told us, “I don’t get much feedback at present. If I ring up, they often don’t answer.”

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People were able to express day‑to‑day preferences, and staff listened to them in routine interactions. However, we found examples of people and relatives not consistently involved in care planning, reviews or decision‑making. A relative commented, “I have had no real involvement in [person]’s care plan. I have asked for a copy, but none has been forthcoming.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People generally had access to care and support according to their assessed needs. However, access to rehabilitation, activities and community engagement varied.

We received positive feedback from people about activities, and mixed feedback from relatives and healthcare professionals about activities and interaction. During our visits we confirmed there was a programme of activities such as arts and crafts and wellbeing initiatives, but we also found examples of lack of evidence of people being involved in activities that were meaningful to them.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Feedback from relatives and professionals highlighted uneven implementation of therapy input, [WB1]resulting in variable outcomes across the service. The service did not consistently demonstrate how it reduced inequality in experiences or outcomes for people with more complex needs. We found one example of a person being treated differently and having to pay to access cultural food of their preference.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Planning for people’s future aspirations required further improvement. Care records rarely showed structured planning for transitions, increased independence or long‑term outcomes. This limited people’s confidence that the service was actively working towards their future goals.