CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Summerfield Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found improvements in safeguarding, medicines and recruitment. However, some risk information was incomplete or out of date, and some bathrooms needed cleaning.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff were trained and people were supported with food, drink and access to healthcare. Some care records were contradictory or out of date, communication with professionals could improve, and oral healthcare was not always followed up.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager and staff created a positive culture and involved people and relatives. However, audits did not reliably identify outdated or conflicting records, missing follow-up and outdated policies.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and safer medicines, but care records, hygiene and checks on quality still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 May 2023. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and outside professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home had improved since its previous inspection in 2021. Medicines were stored and recorded more safely, concerns about possible harm were acted on, and staff were safely recruited. People were supported with food, drink and healthcare, and inspectors found a positive and caring atmosphere.
However, some risk assessments and care plans were out of date, incomplete or contradictory. Communication with health professionals was not always effective. Some bathrooms needed cleaning and had an odour. The home's checks did not reliably find these problems, so it remained in breach of Regulation 17.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this focused inspection, so their previous ratings carried over when the overall rating was calculated.
Safer medicines
The home had improved its medicine systems. Medicines were stored securely, temperature checks were completed and administration records were in place.
“Enough improvement had been made to medicines management at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 12.” from the report
Action on harm
Staff recorded accidents and incidents, and the manager checked that appropriate action was taken, including referrals where needed.
“The provider had made improvements to ensure action was taken when staff identified any risk of harm.” from the report
Caring staff
Inspectors found that staff knew people well and spent time supporting them. People, relatives and staff described a friendly and positive atmosphere.
“The registered manager and staff shared a positive culture, and they were passionate about caring for people.” from the report
Food and drink
Staff knew people's dietary needs and supported people to choose and have food and drink throughout the day. Pictorial menus had also been introduced.
“People were supported to eat and drink and maintain a healthy diet.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousSome care plans did not give staff enough information about identified risks or how to manage them safely. Some records also described monitoring that was no longer needed.
“People's care plans did not always consistently provide enough information of identified risks or guidance for staff to safely manage them.” from the report
Outdated and conflicting records
needs fixingSome records gave different information about people's needs or contained guidance that was no longer current. This could make it harder for staff to provide consistent care.
“Some people's care records contained inconsistent information.” from the report
Oral healthcare follow-up
needs fixingOral healthcare records had gaps or repeated entries showing that care had been refused. Inspectors found no follow-up with professionals or alternative measures in some cases.
“People were not always supported to ensure their oral healthcare needs were met.” from the report
Premises hygiene
needs fixingSome bathrooms needed cleaning and had an odour. The manager took action during the inspection, but inspectors were only somewhat assured about hygiene in these areas.
“We found some bathrooms required cleaning and had an odour.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits did not reliably identify outdated care plans, conflicting information, missing oral healthcare follow-up or incomplete medicine protocols. This was a continued breach of Regulation 17.
“The auditing systems in place were not always effective at identifying areas for improvement.” from the report
- 01Which risk assessments and care plans have been updated since the inspection, and how do you check that they remain accurate?
- 02How are oral healthcare refusals recorded, followed up and supported with alternative measures?
- 03What changes have been made to the auditing system to find conflicting or out-of-date records?
- 04How are bathroom cleaning and odour problems checked now?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan for the Regulation 17 breach?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements, with some worn and rusty fittings needing attention.
This was a targeted inspection on 16 February 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors found that visitors were checked where vaccination proof was required. Staff and residents were tested regularly, staff had received COVID-19 vaccinations unless exempt, and personal protective equipment was plentiful and used properly.
Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including safe admissions, testing, outbreak management, visiting, and the use of protective equipment. They were only somewhat assured about the building's layout and hygiene because some radiator covers were rusty and some handrails were worn.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of the quality of care across all five areas.
Protective equipment
Protective equipment was readily available and staff were observed using it correctly.
“We saw staff were using PPE appropriately at all times.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
Staff and residents were tested regularly. Staff had received COVID-19 vaccinations unless they were exempt.
“Staff and people were regularly tested and had received COVID-19 vaccinations unless exempt.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors were checked on arrival where vaccination proof applied, and visits were supported in line with government guidance.
“Visitors were checked on arrival for proof of vaccination where it was applicable.” from the report
Infection-control checks
The provider carried out regular checks on staff practice and worked with healthcare professionals on infection prevention.
“The provider completed regular checks to ensure staff followed effective infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Worn and rusty fittings
needs fixingSome radiator covers had started to rust and some handrails had worn sections. The issues were on the home's improvement plan, but inspectors were only somewhat assured about the safety of the layout and hygiene practices.
“However, we saw some radiator covers had started to rust and some handrails had worn sections.” from the report
- 01Have the rusty radiator covers been repaired or replaced?
- 02Have the worn sections of handrails been repaired?
- 03What date was set in the improvement plan for completing these repairs?
- 04How are you checking that infection-control practices continue to be followed?
- 05What infection-control arrangements apply now to visiting, testing and protective equipment?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not rate the service overall or assess all five questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 2022 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 Summerfield Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2021Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2019Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2017.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £980 to £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.