Summerhill Care Home

Updated 6 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is 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 inspection took place on 30 January 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by three adult social care inspectors, a pharmacist specialist advisor and a nurse specialist in dementia care. The team was also supported by two experts by experience. One had experience in dementia and older people and the other had experience in dementia, older people and physical and sensory impairment. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to our inspection we looked at the information we held about the service. This included feedback, compliments or complaints as well as statutory notifications that the provider is required to send to us by law. We used a planning tool to collate all this evidence and information prior to visiting the home. Due to technical problems, the provider was not able to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

To understand the experiences of people who used the service we undertook observations in all four units in the home. We also 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 talk with us. We undertook a tour of all of the communal areas of the home and spoke with nine people who used the service, ten family members and obtained feedback from one professional.

We looked at a number of different records relating to the management of the home. These included seven care files, seven staff records, training records, duty rotas, audits, meeting minutes and information relating the monitoring of the service. We also spoke with five care staff, one activities co-ordinator, and three ancillary staff as well as one nurse, the clinical services manager and the registered manager.

Updated 6 March 2018

The inspection took place on 30 January 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the service did not know we were coming. This was the first inspection since the service registered with their new provider HC-One Oval Limited on 3 February 2017. During this inspection we found the service was meeting the requirements of the current legislation.

Summerhill 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.

Summerhill Care Home accommodates up to 71 people across four separate units on two floors, Buttermere, Windermere, Grasmere and Thirlmere, each of which had separate facilities. Buttermere specialised in general nursing care, Windermere specialised in nursing care of people living with dementia, Grasmere specialised in high dependency personal care with mental health needs and Thirlmere specialised in people with personal care needs only.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

Records had been completed in relation to medicines management and people we spoke with told us they were happy with how their medicines were managed.

Staff we spoke with understood the appropriate procedures to take when dealing with any abuse allegations. Records we looked at confirmed the actions taken as a result of any allegations of abuse as well as any lessons learned.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place. Relevant checks had been completed. Staffing levels supported the safe delivery of care to people who used the service. Staff we spoke with confirmed they had received training that supported them to fulfil their role effectively.

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 support this practice.

We saw a positive dining experience was provided to people who used the service. Meals were varied and choices were seen.

It was clear people were happy with their care. Staff were observed treating people with dignity and respect and ensuring their privacy was maintained. Records contained information in them about how to ensure people were supported with their communication.

Care files were detailed and reflected people’s individual needs, choices and likes. People told us they had been involved in reviews about their care.

Systems to deal with complaints were in place. People who used the service and their relatives told us they knew the procedure to raise any concerns.

We received complimentary feedback about the registered manager. It was clear the registered manager had oversight of the service and was working to ensure a smooth transition with the new provider.

Comprehensive and detailed audits were taking place that ensured the home was safe and monitored for people to live in. Records included any actions required as a result of the findings.

Team meetings were completed regularly we saw records of minutes from the meetings. Positive feedback about the quality of the service was seen.