Archived: Summer Lane

Below is a summary of what we found. This is based on our visit to the home when we met with the people who used the service and with members of the staff and management team. We made observations of care and reviewed records relating to the support people received. The inspection was carried out by two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience.

Please read the full report if you want to see the evidence supporting our summary.

Is the service caring?

Throughout the day, we made observations and spoke with people about the care that they received. We saw that people received the support that they needed during the lunch time meal. Staff offered gentle encouragement and pleasant interactions with questions such as "can I help you with that?" and "Is that nice?' In the communal area of the floor for people with nursing needs, we saw that one member of staff pointed out everything on a person's plate to ensure that they knew what they were having to eat.

We received feedback from two other professionals who were present on the day of our inspection. Their feedback was positive. We spoke with people who used the service and their relatives and comments included, 'staff are easy to get on with' and 'I'm very happy with the service we're getting'.

There was a programme of activities for people to be able to participate in if they chose to do so. On the day of our inspection, people were taking part in a 'Pets as Therapy' session.

We viewed support plans and these gave clear information about the ways in which people should be supported.

Is the service responsive?

We viewed the complaints log for the service and saw that when people made a complaint, the manager responded to these appropriately so that people were assured that their concerns were taken seriously.

We looked at staffing levels within the home as part of our inspection and saw that staff were able to respond to people's needs effectively. The manager told us that they had recently increased the number of care workers on duty in response to an increase in people's needs.

Is the service safe?

There were clear risk assessments in place to ensure that people were supported in a safe way. These included a standard risk assessment to identify people at risk of malnutrition. These were reviewed regularly to ensure that they were reflective of people's current needs.

We found that not all records were maintained consistently which meant that there was a risk that important information would be lost and staff would not be able to monitor people's support effectively. This information related to people's food and fluid intake and the support they received with repositioning to prevent pressure damage to the skin.

On the day of our inspection we observed that staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs. However, we heard that there were times, particularly when there was no sixth care worker on the nursing floor, that meeting people's needs was difficult. It was the expectation that there would be a minimum five workers on the nursing floor and six when possible.

Is the service effective?

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. The views of people who used the service and their representatives were sought in order to identify areas for improvement. People also had the opportunity to attended service user meetings if they chose to do so.

There was a programme of audit in place to monitor various aspects of the service, including health and safety, the environment and service user involvement.

Is the service well led?

At the time of our inspection, there was a registered manager in place. However, a new manager was due to begin working at the home shortly after our inspection. The comments that we received from staff were predominantly positive about the support and training they received.

We found the home had taken action to meet the compliance action. This ensured everyone at the home was treated with respect and dignity and was offered choices of meals.

We observed the main meal on Waverley, the part of the home which cared for people who had dementia. We saw that tables were laid with cutlery, glasses and condiments. This meant there were clear prompts for people about the reason for sitting at the table.

People were offered choices of food. We saw each person was offered a choice of meal including vegetables. At the last inspection we noted there was no choice of meal for people who required a soft diet. At this inspection we saw everyone, including those requiring a special diet, were offered choices.

We found that generally the home was staffed by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. However we found on two occasions the provider had not taken suitable steps to ensure that the home was staffed by suitably qualified staff.

Some people who lived at the home were unable to express their views verbally. We therefore spent time observing practices and talking with staff and visitors, as well as speaking with people who lived at the home.

Since the new provider took over the running of the home, approximately three months ago, systems had been put in place to monitor the quality of care provided and ensure on going improvements.

People we spoke with were happy with the care that was provided. Many staff and visitors commented that they felt standards had improved since the new provider had taken over. One visitor told us 'Things have changed and the care is very much better now.' A member of staff said 'The care is better and we feel supported now. There is a positive attitude and real leadership at last.'

There was a calm and friendly atmosphere in the home. We observed that people appeared very comfortable and relaxed with the staff who supported them. Throughout the day we observed, and heard, pleasant and caring interactions between staff and the people who lived at the home.