You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 March 2017

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 January 2017 and was unannounced..

Summer Lane Nursing Home is a care home providing accommodation for up to 100 people who require nursing and personal care. There are three units within the home; Balmoral provides residential and nursing care to older people, Waverly provides care to older people who are living with dementia and Mayflower provides care and support for up to eight people living with early onset dementia.

The home is purpose built and resides in a residential area of Worle. During our inspection there were 46 people in Balmoral, 39 people living in Waverly and three people living in Mayflower.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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’s care plans were not always up to date and care records were not always completed fully by staff. The registered manager had plans in place to address these shortfalls and we saw action was being taken to make improvements.

People, their relatives and staff said the home was a safe place for people. Systems were in place to protect people from harm and abuse and staff knew how to follow them.

The service had systems to ensure medicines were administered and stored correctly and securely. Staff were not always recording when they supported people to administer their creams and ointments.

People were supported by a sufficient number of staff to keep them safe. Risk assessments had been carried out and they contained guidance for staff on protecting people. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure that staff working with people were suitable for their roles.

People were complimentary about the food provided. Where people required specialised diets these were prepared appropriately.

Staff had enough training to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff understood people's needs and provided the care and support they needed. People received support from health and social care professionals.

Where people lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves the service had taken steps to ensure the person’s legal rights were protected. The deputy manager had identified where further information was required and had an action plan in place to address this.

Staff had built trusting relationships with people. People were happy with the care they received. Staff interactions with people were mostly positive and caring. On two occasions staff did not communicate with people whilst they were supporting them with their meals.

There were organised activities and people were able to choose to socialise or spend time alone. There were links with the local community. People and relatives felt able to raise concerns with staff and the manager.

Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and felt there was an open door policy to raise concerns. People and relatives were complimentary about the registered manager and felt the home was well led.

There were quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and safety and plan on-going improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people's views about their care and the running of the home.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 March 2017

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise and report abuse.

People’s medicines were administered and stored safely. Staff were not always recoding when they had administered people’s prescribed creams.

People were supported by staff who had received pre-employment checks to ensure they were suitable for the role.

Risks to people were identified and plans were in place to reduce the risks.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 March 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who received enough training to carry out their role.

Where people lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves processes were in place to protect the person’s rights.

People were well supported by health and social care professionals. This made sure they received appropriate care.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 March 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring staff although staff did not always demonstrate effective communication when support people with their lunch.

People were supported by staff who knew them well.

People were able to make decisions about how they spent their day.

People were supported by staff who understood the importance of privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 March 2017

The service was responsive.

People received support that was personalised and responsive to their needs.

People had access to a wide range of activities.

People and their relatives felt able to raise concerns with the registered manager and staff.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 March 2017

The service was well led.

People were supported by staff who felt able to approach their managers.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service for people. Where they were shortfalls in the service these were identified.

People were supported by staff who were aware of the aims of the service.