You are here

Summerfield Private Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

Summerfield Private Residential Home is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and 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.

Summerfield Private Residential Home provides accommodation to a maximum of 32 people, spread over two floors. The service caters for older people over 65 some of whom are living with dementia. The accommodation is mostly single rooms with a small number of double rooms. It is located in Silsden, near Keighley in West Yorkshire. At the time of the inspection 30 people were living in the home.

The inspection was undertaken on 12 February 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in September 2016 we rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. We identified a breach of Regulation 9 ‘Person centred care’. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the location was no longer in breach of this Regulation.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

People and relatives provided consistently positive feedback about the home. They said that care was of high quality, personalised and met people’s individual needs. People praised the nice atmosphere within the home and said staff were consistently kind and caring.

People felt safe living in the home. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s health and safety were regularly assessed and care plans put in place to help keep them safe. Staff had a good understanding of the people living in the home and how to care for them safely. People received their medicines consistently as prescribed.

There were enough staff working in the home to ensure people received prompt care and support. Staff had time to chat with people as well as completing care tasks. Staff were recruited safely to help ensure they were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people.

The premises was safely managed and suitable for its purpose as a care home. There was pleasant décor, furniture and fittings and the home was kept clean and well maintained.

Incidents and accidents were recorded, investigated and used to make improvements to the safety of the service. When things went wrong, lessons were learnt to help ensure continuous improvement.

People received care from staff with the right skills and knowledge to care for them effectively. Staff received a range of training and support from the management team.

People had access to a good range of food with sufficient choice and variability. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and where people were deemed at risk, plans of care were put in place to mitigate these risks.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People’s consent was sought before care and support was offered.

The service worked well with a range of health professionals to help ensure people’s needs were met. Care needs were assessed and appropriate plans of care put in place. People told us care needs were met by the service.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with a high level of dignity and respect. Staff had developed good relationships with people and knew them well. Care was person centred, focused on meeting people’s individual preferences and taking their views into account. People had access to a wide range of activities and social opportunities.

People were very satisfied with the service

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe living in the home. Systems were in place to protect people from harm. The premises was safe and suitable for its intended purpose.

There were enough staff deployed to ensure people�s care needs were met. Staff were recruited safely.

People received their medicines safely, and as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

The service was effective.

People received care from knowledgeable staff who had received a range of training and support. The service kept up-to-date with the latest guidance and best practice.

People had access to a good range of food. Individualised plans of care were put in place to ensure people�s nutritional needs were met. The service worked effectively with a range of health professionals to help ensure people�s needs were met.

The service was complaint with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Consent was sought before care and support was offered.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. This was confirmed by our observations where we saw staff interacting warmly and positively with people.

There was a nice friendly atmosphere within the home. People and staff knew each other well.

The service respected people�s views and opinions and gave them opportunities to be involved in their care and support.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People spoke positively about the care provided and said it met individualised needs. A range of person centred care plans were in place which considered people�s diverse needs and preferences.

People had access to a good range of activities and social opportunities including links with the local community.

People were very satisfied with the service. Systems were in place to ensure any complaints people had were fully investigated and resolved.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 March 2018

The service was well led.

People and relatives said they were highly satisfied with the overall care and support provided in the home. We found a positive and person centred culture.

The service was committed to continuous improvement of people�s care and support experiences. Systems were in place to audit and check the quality of the service.

People�s views and feedback were used to make changes and improvements to the service.