CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Summerfield Private Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Summerfield Private Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor issues about laundry and hot-water checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, visitors, staff and a health professional. They observed care and mealtimes and checked care, medicines, accident, training and maintenance records.
The home received a Good rating in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable premises, kind staff and care that reflected people's needs and choices.
The previous inspection in September 2016 rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach about person-centred care. At this inspection, inspectors found improvements to mealtimes and said the home was no longer in breach of that regulation.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to provide prompt care and support. Call bells were answered in a timely way, and familiar staff provided consistent care.
“There were enough staff working in the home to ensure people received prompt care and support.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with dignity. Inspectors saw staff taking time to talk with people and offer choices.
“Staff were kind and caring and treated people with a high level of dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and communication needs. People could choose when to get up, go to bed, eat and take part in activities.
“People spoke positively about the care provided and said it met individualised needs.” from the report
Quality checks
The management team used audits, meetings, feedback and reviews of incidents to look for improvements.
“Systems were in place to monitor and check how the service was operating.” from the report
Hot-water checks
minorTemperature checks were carried out, but some outlets had not been tested for several months. Inspectors checked some taps and found safe temperatures during the visit.
“although some outlets had not been tested for several months.” from the report
Laundry separation
minorThe laundry was managed and items were laundered promptly, but limited space meant clean and dirty laundry were not clearly separated.
“due to space limitations in the laundry room, there was not a clear separation of clean and dirty laundry.” from the report
- 01How often are all hot-water outlets checked now, and how are the checks recorded?
- 02What changes have been made to keep clean and dirty laundry clearly separate?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's care plan is updated when their needs or preferences change?
- 04How many staff are normally on duty during the day and at night, and how do you increase staffing if needs change?
- 05Which activities and one-to-one opportunities would be suitable for my relative?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and following up improvements required at the September 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2018 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, October 2016
Rated Requires Improvement; the home had improved after being in special measures, but mealtime arrangements still failed some people's needs.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 27 September 2016. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, managers and a health professional. They also reviewed care records, training records, policies and other management information.
The home had made significant improvements since the August 2015 inspection, when it was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures. Inspectors found good arrangements for safety, staff skills, medicines, nutrition, health care, activities and complaints.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring and well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Some people who needed help with meals were given lunch too soon after breakfast, and the home had not acted on earlier feedback about this.
Safer medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records were generally well completed. Staff were trained and checked people's medicines carefully.
“Medicines were safely managed. People received their medicines as prescribed and they were stored safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people gently and with respect. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and ways of communicating.
“During observations of care and support we saw staff were gentle and kind with people.” from the report
Personalised care records
The new electronic care system contained clear information about people's needs. Care was generally delivered in line with these plans.
“These contained a good level of detail; for example, manual handling plans contained information on the type and size of sling required.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered games, entertainment, exercise and trips. Staff also included people who stayed in their rooms through one-to-one activities.
“A range of activities took place, arranged by a dedicated activities co-ordinator.” from the report
Progress since the last inspection
The report records significant improvements from the previous Inadequate rating and special measures. This included improvements in safety, care planning, nutrition and legal safeguards.
“At this inspection, we found significant improvements had been made to the overall quality of the service.” from the report
Mealtimes were not suited to everyone
seriousSome people who needed help with food were given lunch at a separate early sitting. One person ate lunch shortly after breakfast, which inspectors said was not appropriate.
“We found a lack of person centred approach remained in regards to some people's mealtimes.” from the report
Earlier feedback was not acted on
needs fixingThe home had received feedback about mealtime timings at the previous inspection but had not corrected the problem by this inspection.
“In addition, we found one area where the provider had not acted on our feedback.” from the report
Care plan audits could be stronger
needs fixingInspectors found that audits of care plans were too general and did not clearly show which plans had been checked.
“We found care plan audits could have been more robust, as they were rather generic rather than providing a clear audit trail of the care plans reviewed.” from the report
One care plan was not personalised
needs fixingAlthough care records were generally suitable, one person's skin care plan was too generic and did not properly reflect their needs.
“One person's skin integrity care plan was very generic and not appropriately personalised.” from the report
Some laundry went missing
minorSome people and relatives said clothing or other laundry items sometimes went missing. Staff took steps to reduce this and compensated people when items were lost.
“Some people and relatives reported that laundry sometimes went missing.” from the report
- 01How have you changed mealtime timings so that people who need help are not eating lunch too soon after breakfast?
- 02How do you check that each person's meal times and food support reflect their preferences?
- 03What action has been taken to make care plan audits more detailed and show clearly what was checked?
- 04How was the generic skin integrity care plan corrected, and how do you check that other care plans are personalised?
- 05What arrangements are now in place to prevent laundry going missing and to compensate people if it does?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service; inspectors checked improvements after the August 2015 inspection and gave ratings in all five areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 October 2016 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 Private Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Summerfield Private Residential Home →
- October 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Summerfield Private Residential Home →
- February 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 April 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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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 £1,250 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.