Summerfield Rest Home

Updated 9 December 2020

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 is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 13 November 2020 and was announced on the day of inspection prior to entering the service.

Updated 9 December 2020

This inspection took place on 25 September 2018 and was unannounced. Summerfield 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. It provides accommodation for older people and those with mental health conditions or dementia. The home can accommodate up to 35 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people living in the home.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

The service had previously been rated as ‘requires improvement’. At this inspection the service was rated as ‘good’. The service had addressed the issues raised at previous inspections and arrangements were in place to deliver a good standard of care and improve quality.

There were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. Most risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. Risk assessments were not in place for bed rails however the registered manager put this in place immediately after our inspection. The environment was clean. There were arrangements to prevent and control infections.

Guidance was in place to ensure people received their medicines when required. Processes were in place to manage medicines. Where people required their medicines in food arrangements had not been in place to ensure the method of administration did not affect the efficacy of the medicine. The medicine policy was not in line with good practice guidance.

Where people were unable to make decisions arrangements were in place to ensure decisions were made in people's best interests. Best interests decisions were specific to the decisions which were needed to be made.

A system was in place to carry out suitable quality checks and appropriate checks had been regularly carried out. Where required, actions had been taken to improve the service. The provider had ensured that there was enough staff on duty. In addition, people told us that they received person-centred care. Sufficient background checks had been completed before new staff had been appointed according to the provider’s policy.

Staff had been supported to deliver care in line with current best practice guidance. Arrangements were in place to ensure staff received training to provide care appropriately and effectively. People were helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People had access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed. They had also been supported to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. People had access to lay advocates if necessary. Confidential information was kept private.

Information was provided to people in an accessible manner. People had been supported to access a range of activities. People were supported to access local community facilities. The registered manager recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity. People’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to improve the quality of care. Arrangements were in place to support people at the end of their life.

The registered manager promoted a positive culture in the service that was focused upon achieving good outcomes for people. They had also taken steps to enable the service to meet regulatory requirements. Staff had been helped to understand their responsibilities to develop good team work and to speak out if they had any concerns. People, their relatives and members of staff had been regularly consulted about making improvements in the service. There were arrangements for working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.