You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 1 November 2019

About the service

Hummingbird Care is a care home providing personal care to a maximum of 18 older people. They provide care and support for frail older people and those people living with dementia. It does not provide nursing care. The home is a detached recently refurbished house in the village of Churchinford, seven miles east of the town of Wellington in the Blackdown hills in Somerset. There were 15 people living at the service during this inspection.

The provider also operates a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community, within a five-mile radius of the care home. Not everyone using the domiciliary service receives the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection there were 13 people receiving personal care in their own homes.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The service had improved since the last inspection, the provider had checks and audits in place to identifying shortfalls in the record keeping and identifying possible risks to people. The provider had informed the Commission of notifiable incidents in line with their legal responsibilities.

People lived in a service that kept them safe. The home was well maintained, modern and homely in appearance, with a relaxed, welcoming atmosphere. Staff had been recruited safely and had received training on how to recognise and report abuse. Medicines were safely managed. There was appropriate control of infection processes in place which meant people lived in a home which was clean.

People at Hummingbird Care were valued as individuals and treated with kindness and compassion. Staff knew each person well and were attentive, caring and they engaged with people with kindness and understanding. Staff knew how to communicate with people, so people understood the options available to them.

People received personalised care to meet their needs. The registered manager and staff were very passionate about ensuring people’s social needs were met. People enjoyed a variety of social activities which included in house activities, trips out, local events, social events and family visits.

People were very positive about the staff and the management team and said they were treated with dignity and respect. People’s care plans were in a new format and were personalised and included information for staff about the support people required to meet their needs.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and discrimination. They knew to report any concerns and ensure action was taken.

People’s and relatives’ views were sought, and opportunities were taken to improve the service. Staff were supervised, supported and were clear about their roles and responsibilities. People were cared for by staff who received regular training that was tailored to meet the needs of the people living in the service and to their specific roles.

People’s needs and preferences regarding food and drink were known and respected. People were positive about the food they received. Comments included, “A good variety of food.”

People were supported to access healthcare services. Staff worked closely with health professionals, including the GP and community nurses and referred people promptly. They held a three monthly review for people at the home to review their presentation and health needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff ensured people living with dementia had given consent or received care in their best interests in line with current legislation.

People knew how to make a complaint if necessary. Th

Inspection areas



Updated 1 November 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 1 November 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 1 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 1 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 1 November 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.