Summercourt

Updated 18 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This unannounced inspection took place on the 23, 27 February 2017 and was completed on 25 May 2017. One adult social care inspector attended on the first and second days of the inspection but was unable to complete the inspection due to operational issues unrelated to the home. Two adult social care inspectors returned to the home to complete the inspection on the third day.

The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the home, what the home does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the information in the PIR and also looked at other information we held about the home before the inspection visit such as statutory notifications. Statutory notifications are changes or events that occur at the service which the provider has a legal duty to inform us about.

We contacted the local authority Quality and Improvement Team and health care professionals that had been involved with the home to gather information about the home and how well they worked with other services. We used all of this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.

During the inspection we looked around the home and observed the way staff interacted with people to help us understand the experience of people who lived there. During the inspection we spoke with sixteen people living at the home. We also spoke with six relatives who were visiting. We spoke with eleven members of staff, the registered manager, deputy manager and the registered provider.

We looked at the care plans, records and daily notes for six people with a range of needs, and sampled other care plans for specific information. We looked at policies and procedures in relation to the operation of the home, such as the safeguarding and complaints policies, audits and quality assurance reports. We also looked at three staff files to check that the home was operating a full recruitment procedure, comprehensive training and provided regular supervision and appraisal of staff.

Updated 18 October 2017

This inspection took place on 23 and 27 February 2017 and was completed on the 25 May 2017. The first day was unannounced.

Summercourt is a residential home in Teignmouth, Devon providing accommodation and care for up to 20 people. People living at the home were older people, some of whom were living with dementia or a physical disability. On the day of the inspection, 19 people were living at the home.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found the home was extremely well managed, with clear lines of responsibility and accountability. It was evident that the management had a passion to provide exceptional care and people were at the centre of everything they did or planned to do. This had led to a home that had a truly positive culture that was person centred, open, inclusive and empowering.

People told us they were very happy living at Summercourt and that staff consistently demonstrated a compassionate, warm and caring approach. Our observations confirmed this and we saw that the atmosphere of the home was one of warmth, happiness and positivity. Staff were seen to consistently show respect, patience and understanding when supporting people. The culture within the home supported a warm and friendly atmosphere. People were supported to maintain good relationships with people that were important to them.

All the people we spoke with during our inspection consistently talked of a home and staff that went the extra mile to achieve an outstanding quality of life for people who lived at Summercourt. They told us people were cared for in an exemplary manner and that support was delivered in an person centred way. Our inspection findings confirmed this.

People felt safe living at the home. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required to keep them safe. Recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff unsuited to the job.

Staff had the relevant knowledge and skills to support people. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal meetings to monitor their performance and professional development. Staff used feedback from these meetings to improve their practice. Staff received on-going training to enable them meet people's needs.

Care plans described the support people needed and explained people's preferences and routines. People were given choices about how and where they spent their time and this was respected by staff. People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs.

People's care plans included risk assessments of activities associated with their personal care and support routines, such as, supporting people with their mobility, personal care, nutrition and minimise risks related to pressure area skin damage. The risk assessments provided information for staff that enabled them to support people safely, protect them from harm or injury but without restricting their independence.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2015. Some documentation did not demonstrate that the principles of the MCA and best interests decision making had been followed where they should. The registered manager acknowledged this oversight and acted immediately to rectify this. Staff had awareness of the MCA and understood they could provide care and support only if a person consented to it and if the proper safeguards were put in place to protect their rights. Appropriate applications had been made to safeguard some people's rights by making applications under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs).

People enjoyed the food that was offered to them and were supported to maintain a healthy diet. They could choose what they ate and their preferences and requirements were known and met by staff.

People were supported to take their medicines in a safe and timely manner by competent staff. Medicines were stored, recorded and disposed of safely and appropriately. However, during the inspection we saw that people’s medicated creams had not been dated when they had been opened. We have made a recommendation about the administration of topical medicines.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people were supported and empowered to make a complaint if they wished to. Complaints were investigated and appropriate actions were taken.

The provider and registered manager had ensured there were effective systems for governance, quality assurance and ensuring safe care for people. They demonstrated good leadership, and there was a clear ethos for the service, which was understood and put into practice by the staff. Systems for quality assurance included seeking the views of people living at the home, their relatives and staff about what could be improved and what was working well for them. This was done through questionnaires, regular meetings and forums. Information for people was displayed in the home and included leaflets about people's rights, standards people should expect and outcomes of feedback given.

People lived in a comfortable environment which promoted people's wellbeing and ensured their safety. Regular safety checks were carried out on the environment and equipment and plans were in place to manage emergencies. However, during our tour of the building we saw that not all windows had window restrictors. The registered manager acted immediately to rectify this and keep people safe.

Rooms were decorated to individual taste and people could choose what items to keep there. There was a lift to assist people with all levels of mobility to access all areas of the home. However, we noted that although the home supported people living with dementia, we saw little in the way of signage directing people to their bedrooms, communal rooms, bathrooms, toilets, lifts and stairs. We made a recommendation that the provider take advice about best practice in environmental design for people living with dementia.

Records were well maintained, and notifications had been sent to CQC or other agencies as required by law.