The Summers

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Processes for investigating, analysing, and responding to accidents, incidents, complaints, and safeguarding alerts were in place, with systems for families, people and staff to raise concerns or share their views. People and their relatives were encouraged and supported to raise concerns and knew who to contact if they had any issues. A healthcare professional told us, ‘Suggestions we make to the clinical lead regarding pain medication for residents were taken on board and changes made. The manager takes on board suggestions from our team and feeds back the changes she has put in place.’ Trends and themes were identified and risk mitigation measures put in place. For example, the manager’s falls analysis identified that the majority of falls were unwitnessed and occurred at night in people’s bedrooms. Actions taken included securing the same agency workers who were familiar with people in the service. Other actions included night checks included monitoring of potential environmental hazards in people’s rooms and those who had frequent falls were referred to NHS falls team for specialist assessment.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider had a robust safeguarding system in place. Staff knew how to report concerns both internally and externally to the service. A relative told us, “It’s a safe space for my relative. [Person] tends not to like some of the others but the staff know how to handle this and they do it with humour.” Staff attended safeguarding training and understood their responsibility to report any witnessed abuse or poor practice. They told us “If I see anything, first I inform my team leader who is with me on the floor, and they will tell the manager.” A member of staff from the local authority told us, ‘The home is consistent in reporting concerns, including low level ones that do not meet the safeguarding criteria, so they are transparent.’ Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place to legally authorise restrictions placed on people to keep them safe. Staff reviewed people’s DoLS to ensure all restrictions were noted and considered.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated when people’s care needs changed. People were supported by staff who understood their individual risks and how best to mitigate them. For example, we observed how staff supported a person, who was at risk of choking, to eat their meal safely and in accordance with guidance from a speech therapist. Staff we spoke with understood the risks to people and the actions they needed to take to keep people safe. Staff told us of ways in which they supported people to manage their risks, “We check all the time that [person] is safe, they do not have bed rails because sensor and crash mats are safer,” and “We have ‘safe and well’ checks where we check residents every hour and record this as evidence.” A local authority professional told us, ‘On our visits we look at falls plans which were being followed. Risk assessments were robust.'

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. There was a system in place to ensure the required health and safety checks were completed. People told us the layout of the building suited their needs and was easy to navigate their way around, “The layout and environment of the home help to keep [person] safe.” There was a maintenance person on site 3 days a week, who had responsibility for the day-to-day maintenance of the building and checking of equipment. Care equipment was observed to be in good working order and documentation to support regular servicing was seen. who oversaw environmental and safety checks. All required checking and testing was carried out in a timely manner by the maintenance person or external specialist contractors. A recent inspection by the local Fire Rescue Service confirmed The Summers had a reasonable standard of fire safety. Fire drills were regularly carried out. Where some parts of the building were in need of redecoration we saw this was on the service improvement plan and due to be actioned within 8 weeks of this assessment.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Most people told us they thought there were sufficient staff to meet their needs and said, “There certainly seems to be [enough staff] because they are always available.” The provider made sure staff training was up to date and people told us they were supported by staff who were trained to support their needs. Relatives told us, “Staff are well trained, and appear to know what they are doing.” Care staff were supported to gain the Care Certificate, (The Care Certificate standards define the knowledge, skills and behaviours expected of specific job roles in health and social care). Staff training was a blend of eLearning and classroom learning. Staff said they received training necessary to carry out their role effectively, “They give me a good training and induction, I am 100% on my training.” Staff spoke positively about their supervision with the manager or team leader, “We are asked how we are doing and it is a space to raise any concerns,” and “'We talk about how I am doing, any support I need." Staff rotas and levels were consistent with the provider’s assessment of staffing levels and included some agency workers. Our observations showed that people received timely care, call bells were answered promptly, staff did not appear rushed when carrying out their duties.The provider followed safe recruitment practices which included identity checks, eligibility to work in the UK, and references from previous employers. Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were completed. Before commencing their employment, checks were made to ensure registered nurses were fit to practice as nurses.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff received training in infection prevention and control and the provider had policies in place for staff to follow should there be any outbreaks of infectious diseases. There was personal protective equipment (PPE) placed around the service for staff to use. The service was clean and regular cleaning schedules in place. People told us, “Everything is cleaned every day and the staff use gloves and aprons when doing personal care. The cleaners keep the bedroom clean,” and “The home is clean and hygienic and my room is cleaned every day.” The registered manager completed regular audits on cleaning and infection control and took action when needed. We observed that equipment used to support people’s care, including slings, hoists and wheelchairs, were clean.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened and asked people’s preferences for how they liked to take their medicines and followed this. Where medicines were prescribed ‘when required’ there were personalised protocols to guide staff when these would be needed and the correct documentation around people’s specific needs was in place. Staff were trained and had competency checks to ensure they gave medicines safely. People told us they were supported to take their medicines and records showed they received their medicines as prescribed. There were suitable arrangements for ordering, storing and disposal of medicines. There were regular medicines audits and areas for improvement were identified and addressed. Any medicines incidents were appropriately reported and investigated, so measures could be put in place to prevent a recurrence and learning could be shared.