CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Summer Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, incident monitoring, infection control, staffing and medicines systems had improved.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. Care plans were personalised, healthcare was accessed promptly, and people's nutrition, hydration and daily care needs were monitored.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management oversight and quality checks had improved. People, relatives and staff reported positive changes, although the service was still working to embed an open and learning culture.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good after major improvements, but the home had recently been rated Inadequate and was in Special Measures.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 and 29 June 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They looked at the environment, care records, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found improvements in risk assessments, incident monitoring, infection control, staffing, training, medicines, personal care and management oversight.
The previous inspection had rated the home Inadequate and found breaches of several regulations. At this inspection, the provider was no longer in breach. The home was removed from Special Measures and the overall rating changed to Good.
This was a focused inspection. Inspectors did not directly inspect Caring or Responsive, so those ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Better risk management
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff clearer guidance. Accidents and incidents were reviewed for patterns and lessons were shared with staff.
“Risks to people had been identified and mitigated effectively.” from the report
Safe staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had also received additional training, including in epilepsy and dementia care.
“There were sufficient staff on duty to keep people safe, meet their needs and provide them with good quality care and support.” from the report
Prompt healthcare support
People were supported to access doctors and other healthcare professionals when needed. Referrals were made promptly when staff noticed changes in people's health.
“The management team communicated well with other professionals and made referrals in a timely manner when people needed support” from the report
More person-centred care
Inspectors found improvements in personal care, activities and support based on people's preferences. Feedback had led to changes such as recruiting activity staff.
“The management and staff team had worked hard to ensure people received person centred care and stimulation based on their needs and preferences.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had introduced daily checks and regular quality audits. The management team used feedback from people and relatives to make changes.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality and standards of the service.” from the report
No registered manager yet
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A new manager had applied to register, but the application was still being assessed.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Improvements still being embedded
minorThe home had made substantial changes, but inspectors said work was continuing to embed an open and learning culture. The recent history means families may want to check that changes are maintained.
“work continued on embedding an open and learning culture.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager's application to register been completed, and who is responsible for the home until then?
- 02How are accidents, incidents and falls reviewed now, and how are lessons shared with staff?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient, including for activities and time spent with residents?
- 04How are care plans checked to make sure personal hygiene, nutrition, hydration and healthcare preferences are being followed?
- 05What evidence can you show that the improvements found at this inspection have continued since June 2023?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Summer Court is rated Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found people at risk from poor risk management, staffing shortfalls and weak leadership.
This was an unannounced focused inspection by two inspectors on 9 and 14 December 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, staff records, audits, policies and other records.
The home was not safe. Risk assessments and monitoring records were incomplete, accidents were not always followed up, staffing was not enough to meet people's needs, and infection control was poor. Staff training also had gaps, including training for dementia, diabetes, epilepsy, pressure care and catheter care.
The home was not well-led. The same problems had continued through three previous rated inspections, and quality checks had not led to prompt improvement. The inspection found breaches of Regulations 9, 12, 17 and 18. Medicines management had improved enough that the home was no longer in breach of Regulation 12 for this area, although inspectors recommended better recording of medicine times.
The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. The home is in special measures, so CQC said it would normally re-inspect within six months to check for significant improvement.
Access to healthcare
People were supported to attend healthcare appointments, including with doctors and district nurses.
“People were supported to access health care appointments including doctors and district nurses.” from the report
Mental capacity processes
The records reviewed showed that capacity assessments and best-interest decisions had been completed when people could not consent to care.
“Capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been carried out when people were unable to consent to care.” from the report
Medicines improvement
Medicines management had improved since the previous inspection, and staff had competency checks for administering medicines.
“At this inspection sufficient improvement had been in the management of people's medicines and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.” from the report
Open inspection response
The area manager was open about the problems and recognised that improvements were needed.
“The area manager was open and honest during the inspection.” from the report
Risks and accidents
seriousRisk assessments and care plans did not always give staff enough guidance. Monitoring and follow-up after accidents were not reliable, leaving people at risk of further harm.
“Systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate safety was effectively managed. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousStaffing levels meant people did not always receive showers, personal care, activities or enough time with staff.
“At this inspection we continued to find there was insufficient staff to meet people's needs and deliver high quality care.” from the report
Infection control and cleanliness
seriousSome staff used protective equipment incorrectly, and parts of the home and some people's belongings were not clean.
“Staff were not wearing and disposing of PPE correctly to reduce the risk of spread of infection.” from the report
Staff training
seriousTraining records had gaps in areas linked to people's needs, including catheter care. Supervision did not always provide personalised feedback or development support.
“The providers matrix continued to show gaps in training this included dementia, diabetes, epilepsy and pressure area care despite people presenting with these needs.” from the report
Person-centred care
seriousPeople did not always receive care, clothing choices, showers or activities that matched their preferences and individual needs.
“People did not always receive person centred care due to the poor staffing levels.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousThe provider's checks did not lead to prompt action, and the same problems had continued across earlier inspections.
“The provider has failed to learn and make the necessary improvements to the service.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to ensure risk assessments, fluid monitoring and accident records are complete and acted on promptly?
- 02How many staff are on each shift now, and how do you make sure people receive their showers, personal care and activities?
- 03Which staff have completed training in dementia, diabetes, epilepsy, pressure care and catheter care?
- 04What has been done to improve cleanliness and the correct use and disposal of protective equipment?
- 05Who is now managing the home, and how are you checking that the warning notice and other required improvements have been completed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the report says their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Summer Court
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2023InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.