Summerfield Private Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Assessments were not consistently up-to-date or reviewed to make sure people’s current needs were understood and reflected in their care and support.

Pre-admission assessments were completed before people moved into the home. Care plans were in place, but not always up to date or fully reflective of people's needs. For example, one person had sustained a serious injury following a fall and as a result their movement was restricted to allow the injury to heal. Care plans and risk assessments had not been updated to reflect this injury or the additional support the person required from staff. The provider confirmed action had been taken to address this issue following our feedback.

The provider confirmed people and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Recognised assessment tools such as the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) were in place. Signage was in place to help people living with dementia find their way around and locate their rooms. Care plans provided information about people's nutrition and hydration needs. People said they enjoyed the food. One person said, “I eat much better here than I did at home, I think I’m gaining some of the weight I had lost.”

We observed people were offered, and enjoyed, plenty of food and drinks throughout the day with lots of choice. However, fluid intake charts indicated people were not receiving sufficient fluids, which the provider assured us was a recording issue. The provider took action to address this during the assessment.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Processes were in place to ensure joint working within the staff team and with other professionals. Communication systems ensured staff were informed of any changes in people’s care and support. Staff said communication amongst the team was good and they were kept up to date about people’s needs.

The provider worked collaboratively and effectively with other professionals including the district nursing team, GP, social workers, telemedicine and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT). One professional told us, “Communication is good, the staff refer appropriately and act on any advice given.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

Staff worked with other professionals to maximise people's health and independence. Staff completed training, and were using, the malnutrition pathway set up by Bradford dietetic NHS community to improve malnutrition prevention and treatment for people at the most risk. Weight audits showed overall people's weights remained stable.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care records showed people's health care was monitored and appropriate action was taken when concerns were identified.

The provider did not always assess people’s mental capacity to make specific decisions and best interest decision making processes were not always implemented.

People’s care plans provided information about capacity and consent. However, where people lacked capacity, decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions (BID) were not always in place. For example, where people had bed rails and/or sensor equipment in place, we found capacity assessments and BIDs had not always been completed.