Summerfield Private Residential Home

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 remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received personalised care from staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs, preferences, and communication styles. We observed staff were responsive to people’s needs and consulted with people gaining consent before providing any support.

Although care plans required more work to ensure they were accurate and fully reflected people's preferences, people were generally satisfied with the care they received.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff understood people’s needs and worked proactively with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure people received coordinated care and continuity of support.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

An accessible information policy was in place and reviewed annually. Information could be provided in different formats to meet individual requirements. Communication plans identified any aids required and we saw people had these in place, for example, hearing aids and glasses.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Systems were in place to enable people, relatives and professionals to share feedback and raise any concerns. Residents’ meetings were held regularly. There were no relatives’ meetings although, one relative told us they thought this would be a good idea. A family newsletter was distributed monthly, and surveys were sent out to relatives, staff and professionals for their feedback. Both registered managers were available to relatives and encouraged contact. The provider also had private social media groups for relatives.

People and relatives knew who to go to if they had any concerns and felt these would be dealt with. One relative told us about concerns they had raised and said these had been dealt with and resolved to their satisfaction.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was accessible and welcoming. People were able to access well landscaped garden areas outside which had a variety of seating areas. Signage was in place to help people navigate around the service. Staff supported people to access the health and social support they required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had an equality, diversity, and human rights policy in place to protect people and staff against discrimination.Staff had completed equality and diversity training.

People and relatives told us they had not experienced or witnessed any form of discrimination within the service and felt the staff treated everyone fairly and as individuals.

People were 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.

End of life care plans were in place. The registered managers consulted with people, and their relatives, to establish their wishes and preferences for end-of-life care. They were aware some people and relatives may be reluctant to discuss end-of-life care and conversations with people were approached sensitively and respectfully.

Kindness and compassion was shown to relatives of people who had passed away and friendships were maintained, with one relative regularly visiting for lunch several months after their loved one had died.

We received feedback from another relative who’s loved one passed away this year. They said, “When my [relative] was at end of life, the [registered] manager came in on her days off and this was so appreciated by all of us. The [registered] manager is such an excellent advocate for the home, and we will be eternally grateful for the warm safe care my [relative] received up until [their] passing recently.”