Summerleaze Residential Home

Updated 14 August 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Summerleaze Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

What we did: Before the inspection, we reviewed relevant information we had about the service, including any notifications of safeguarding or incidents affecting the safety and wellbeing of people. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We checked the last inspection report and contacted the local authority for information.

The service completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what it does well and any improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection, we spoke with 11 people living at the home, three relatives, five staff members and the registered manager. Some people using the service were living with dementia or illnesses that limited their ability to communicate and tell us about their experience of living there. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not speak with us and share their experience fully. We also gathered positive feedback from three health professionals.

We reviewed three people’s care records, including assessments, staff files, records of accidents, incidents and complaints, audits and quality assurance reports.

Updated 14 August 2019

Summerleaze Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 31 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. During our inspection, 30 people were living at the home; a few people were staying on a short stay basis to recuperate or because of their family circumstances. Some people chose to return for a short stay on a regular basis.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were positive about their experience of living at the home. For example, “It’s very friendly…

A friend recommended it … she said it was a good place, and she was right.”

People said they felt safe and they received their medicines on time. People were protected from abuse because staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Staffing levels delivered responsive support to people. Care staff were recruited to suit the caring values of the service and recognised the importance of team work to provide consistent and safe care. The home was well maintained, clean, and staff had access to protective equipment to protect people from the risk of infections.

There was a stable and attentive staff group; a person said “I am well looked after. I would not want to be anywhere else.” People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity. Staff relationships with the people they assisted continued to be caring and reassuring. Care staff were kept up to date with changes in people’s health and spoke respectfully about the people they supported. They understood how they contributed to both people’s physical health and mental wellbeing.

Staff received training at the start and throughout their employment to ensure they had the skills to provide effective care. Staff said they were well supported by the manager and the providers. The registered manager and care staff worked well with community health professionals to ensure people received effective care. Referrals were appropriately made to health care services when people’s needs changed.

People’s care needs were regularly reviewed. Risk assessments identified when people could be at risk. They covered people's physical and mental health needs and the environment they lived in. People's nutritional needs were met, and people socialised as they ate their meal in an unrushed atmosphere.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Information was in place to ensure people’s legal rights were protected.

There were systems in place which enabled the registered manager and the providers to monitor the quality of care. For example, through regular reviews, surveys, meetings and observations of staff practice. Feedback from people using the service and quality assurance records showed this approach had been effective. For example, “I can’t fault this place” and “They treat you very well here.”

Rating at last inspection (and update):

The last rating for this service was Good (published). At this inspection, the rating remained the same.

Why we inspected: This inspection was scheduled for follow up based on the last report rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the intelligence we receive about the service. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk