CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Summerhill
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found people were cared for kindly, but care records and risk management were not always safe or well controlled.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 29 September and 4 October 2022. Inspectors reviewed information about the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, observed care, and checked care, medicines, training and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and relatives said their loved ones were well cared for. Staff were caring and trained, medicines were managed safely, infection control practice followed government guidance, and people's needs were assessed before they moved in.
However, some care records were inaccurate, incomplete or contradictory. Risk assessments and emergency evacuation plans did not always give enough detail. Quality checks had not found these problems. The home breached Regulations 12 and 17, and the provider sent CQC an improvement plan.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that people were safe and well cared for.
“People said they were well looked after and felt safe. Relatives spoken with also told us they felt their loved one was safe and well cared for.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw patient, compassionate and personalised interactions between staff and people.
“We observed warm and caring engagement between staff and people which was open and personalised.” from the report
Staff training
Staff completed a broad range of training to help them meet people's needs.
“Staff completed a wide range of training to make sure they had the knowledge and competency to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines management
Medicines were managed safely, with an electronic system designed to alert staff to administration errors.
“An electronic system was used for the administration of medicines which alerted staff if they attempted to administer medicines incorrectly.” from the report
Incomplete risk and care records
seriousSome records contained conflicting information about important matters such as resuscitation decisions and allergies. Records also lacked enough detail about personal care and mobility needs.
“Care records were not always sufficiently detailed in relation to the care and support people needed with personal care and mobility.” from the report
Emergency evacuation plans
seriousPersonal emergency evacuation plans did not explain the individual support people needed to leave the building safely.
“Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were in place, however, they were not person centred and did not provide specific detail on the support people needed to evacuate the building.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits had not found the problems in care records, evacuation plans and employment records. This led to a breach of the good governance regulation.
“A range of audits were completed, however, they had not identified the shortfalls we found during this inspection in relation to PEEPs, care records and employment records.” from the report
Out-of-date infection policy
needs fixingInspectors found that infection control practice followed government guidance, but the home's COVID-19 policies were out of date.
“We were not assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Employment history records
minorRecruitment was mostly safe, but the home needed to ensure every applicant provided a full employment history.
“However, the provider needed to make sure all applicants provided a full employment history.” from the report
- 01Have all care records been reviewed and corrected, including information about allergies, resuscitation decisions, personal care and mobility?
- 02How have personal emergency evacuation plans been changed to describe the individual support each person needs?
- 03How are audits now checking that care records and risk assessments are accurate and complete?
- 04Has the infection prevention and control policy been updated to reflect current government guidance?
- 05How do you now check that every job applicant provides a full employment history?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and ratings for uninspected questions were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 November 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.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Summerhill was rated Good; inspectors found improved safety and management, with some staffing and infection-control points still to watch.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 and 19 October 2021. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicines, maintenance and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Risk assessments, medicines management, premises checks, records and quality checks were better. The home was no longer in breach of Regulations 12 and 17.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. The other three areas were not inspected this time, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Improved risk management
The home had put better systems in place to assess and review risks. Checks of the building and equipment had also been completed.
“Risks were now being assessed, reviewed and documented.” from the report
Safer medicines systems
Medicines administration records showed that medicines were given as prescribed. The manager had also introduced a stronger assessment form for staff competency.
“Medicines administration records evidenced that medicines were administered as prescribed.” from the report
Better oversight
Inspectors found that quality checks were now taking place and that records were easier to find and better reflected people's needs.
“Checks to monitor the quality and safety of the service were now being carried out.” from the report
Positive relationships
Inspectors observed positive interactions between people and staff. Relatives also described the staff as cheerful and willing to help.
“There was a cheerful atmosphere at the home and we observed positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingFeedback about whether there were enough staff was mixed. The home had stopped accepting new admissions while it recruited more staff.
“They were not accepting any new admissions to the service until more staff were recruited.” from the report
Infection-control guidance
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured about the use of personal protective equipment and how new admissions were checked. They recommended keeping infection-control guidance under review.
“We recommend the provider keeps infection control guidance under review to ensure that best practice is followed.” from the report
Medicines competency records
minorMedicines were administered safely, but records showing staff medicines competency were not complete. The manager had started using a new assessment form.
“We identified shortfalls with the recording of staff medicines competencies.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are currently on duty during the day and at night, and has recruitment improved since the inspection?
- 02What checks are now used when someone is admitted to make sure infection-control best practice is followed?
- 03What additional personal protective equipment is used for aerosol-generating procedures?
- 04How do you record and review each staff member's competency to administer medicines?
- 05How are accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns reviewed so that lessons are acted on?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 2021 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 Summerhill
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.