The Summers

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The provider accessed training through the Local Integrated Care Board. The manager accessed network groups in the local borough which had a focus on shared cross-service sharing. Staff were positive about their roles and told us they felt supported and knew how to seek advice, guidance and support. They understood the shared goal of The Summers was to provide people with good, safe and effective care.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had a clear vision and were committed to providing a person-centred responsive service. They had the skills, knowledge, experience to lead effectively, which they did with integrity, openness and honesty. The manager spent time each day out of their office, meeting and greeting people, their relatives and staff. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about how the home was managed and said, “The manager is really nice and helpful. I find the manager approachable. She’ll always try to help you.” Staff worked well together and they told us there was a strong sense of teamwork, “The people are friendly, we help each other; we have good teamwork here.” They also told us the management team encouraged them to develop professionally and provided support to them both personally and professionally, “Sometimes [regional manager] has a meeting with us. They talk about teamwork, how to help one another, how to support the residents, they are supporting us from top to bottom."

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There was a culture of openness in which feedback from people living in The Summers and their relatives, as well as staff, was routinely gathered through meetings and surveys and used to develop the service. Feedback from staff was additionally gathered through individual supervision with managers. The manager, senior members of the team and regional manager were visible in the home and provided staff with the opportunity to approach them with any concerns. Staff said they were confident they could raise concerns with the management team and would be respected for doing so. They told us they were actively encouraged to speak up, “If I have concerns, immediately I would tell my manager. If no action is taken, we can tell the council or you guys [CQC],” and “We are told about the whistle-blowing policy. “If the manager is not taking any actions, we can call the CQC.” Members of the provider’s human resources team ran a ‘surgery’ twice a year at The Summers which provided an opportunity for staff to raise matters which they may not otherwise wish to raise.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. There were systems in place to ensure each member of the management team understood their responsibilities and additional oversight was provided by the regional manager, in addition to the provider’s overarching governance systems. The provider carried out a range of audits and checks which informed any changes required and identified support staff to improve their working practices. Most identified actions were resolved within a short time frame and where more complex areas for improvement were identified, these were added to the service improvement plan, with an expected target completion date. For example, where some staff training was out of date, the following audit confirmed they were compliant. Refurbishment of parts of the building was on the service improvement plan and scheduled to commence within 8 weeks of this assessment. People and their relatives spoke positively about home manager and staff in general. We were told, “Staff deal with people with patience and care, and the manager is approachable and takes time out to talk to the residents,” and “The home is good at doing everything well. They make sure it’s good care everywhere.”

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. They actively sought feedback from people and their families about the quality of resident and family meetings, most of which was positive, “They do have relatives meetings but I’m quite happy really, I can’t think of any improvements,” and “The home is good at communicating with and encouraging [person] to speak up about things.” However, two relatives commented that minutes of meetings were not always circulated following meetings and they did not always know when the meetings would be taking place. However, some comments included, “There are relatives’ meetings but I don’t believe that they give you enough information at these meetings and quite often things are not followed up,” and “There are regular family meetings but many people don’t realise that there are. They do take minutes but they never get issued.” We found there was collaboration with external stakeholders which included healthcare professionals, local authority social workers and safeguarding teams and allied healthcare professionals. One healthcare professional told us, ‘The manager and clinical lead have regular safety huddles with the Quality in Care Home Liaison team. This aim is to improve communication through partnering, the aim being to reduce admissions to hospital and highlight any learning needs.’

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe and effective practice. The manager engaged with local managers’ networks to share best practice with their peer group. A local authority professional told us, ‘There is evidence that the manager and clinical lead are reviewing falls and putting changes in place to reduce incidence of falls, and learning from this.’ The manager told us their aspiration for the service was to ensure people received consistent, high-quality care and support from a skilled and committed staff team. They used feedback and audits to identify required actions, which were added to the service improvement plan. Progress on areas for improvement was publicly displayed on noticeboards as a ‘You said/we did’ poster. Staff told us the management team reviewed incidents and events and shared learning with them for improvement and development, which we saw recorded in regular staff meetings. Daily ‘heads of departments’ meetings were held to discuss the business of the day and review any arising issues from the previous 24 hours.