CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Summerlands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding procedures, risks were assessed and medicines were managed by trained and competent staff. Staffing levels and recruitment checks were also found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received relevant training and support. People were helped to make choices, eat and drink according to their needs, and access health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to communicate and build independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and gave staff clear guidance about people's needs and preferences. People were supported with activities, complaints and planning for end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear shared vision, regular audits and systems for gathering feedback. Inspectors found that earlier problems with notifications, one-to-one support records and audits had improved.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Summerlands was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some minor delays in sending documents.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 10 January 2018. They spoke with people living there, staff, the manager and a health and social care professional. They also checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, rotas and quality audits.
The home was supporting eight people with learning disabilities and or autistic spectrum disorder. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported them to communicate, stay healthy, take part in activities and develop independence. Medicines, staffing, safeguarding and risks were managed safely.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had improved since the previous inspection in November 2016, when it was rated Requires Improvement. The report says the earlier issues had been addressed.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected each person's personality, preferences and needs. People were involved in writing and updating them.
“People's care plans were person centred and gave clear guidance to staff about how they wanted to be supported.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff adapted how they worked with each person and promoted privacy, dignity and positive relationships.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well and who treated them with kindness.” from the report
Choice and communication
People were supported to make choices and express themselves using tools such as pictures, symbols and Makaton.
“People were encouraged to use a range of communication tools to express themselves.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Only trained and assessed staff administered medicines. Inspectors found complete medicines records and suitable staffing arrangements.
“People's medicines were managed safely by competent staff.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed earlier concerns about mental capacity, health care plans, one-to-one support records, notifications and quality audits.
“At this inspection improvements had been made.” from the report
Some document delays
minorHealth and social care professionals said that documents were sometimes not received quickly. The report does not describe this as affecting the overall rating.
“Health and social care professionals told us that on occasions documents were not always received quickly” from the report
Laundry problems
minorRelatives had raised concerns that some clothes had shrunk or been ruined in the laundry. The home added signs and replaced damaged clothing.
“Some relatives had raised concerns about how people's laundry had been completed resulting in people's clothing shrinking or being ruined.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, including any use of pictures, symbols or signs?
- 02How would you manage my relative's specific health conditions and make sure advice from health professionals is followed?
- 03What activities and independence goals could my relative work towards here?
- 04How do you prevent clothes from being damaged or shrunk in the laundry?
- 05How quickly can families and professionals receive care plans and other important documents?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 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, January 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but identified gaps in decision-making records, epilepsy care plans and management checks.
Inspectors visited the home on 16 and 18 November 2016. They spoke with people, staff and managers, reviewed four people's care records, medicines records, accident logs, audits, policies and other information.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. People were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely, staff were kind, and people were supported to make choices and take part in activities that mattered to them.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Mental Capacity Act assessments were not always completed properly, epilepsy care plans needed more detail, records of one-to-one support were not reliable, and the CQC had not been told about one authorised deprivation of liberty.
Safety arrangements
Staff understood safeguarding and people's individual risks. Emergency evacuation plans and checks of the building and equipment were in place.
“People were supported by staff who had received safeguarding adults training and understood how to reduce the risk of people experiencing avoidable harm or abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff respond calmly to distress, protect privacy and treat people with dignity. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as they wished.
“Staff supported people in a kind and caring way. Staff understood people's needs and listened to and acted upon their views.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans focused on people's preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities, family relationships and regular reviews of their care.
“People's care records were person centred and focused on what was important to them.” from the report
Food and health support
People could choose their meals and were supported to follow a balanced diet. Referrals to health professionals were made when needed.
“People were supported to make healthy and wise food choices to enable them to follow a balanced diet.” from the report
Capacity decision records
needs fixingThe home did not always complete formal Mental Capacity Act assessments or record clearly how decisions had been made. Inspectors said this could mean decisions were made without showing they were in the person's best interests.
“However, the knowledge of the staff was not always supported by the appropriate assessments being completed where people had been identified as being unable to make a specific decision for themselves.” from the report
Epilepsy care plans
seriousStaff had epilepsy training, but care plans did not contain enough individual guidance about what to do if a person had a seizure. Inspectors said this created a risk of avoidable harm.
“Staff had received training to support people living with epilepsy, but individualised guidance needed to be recorded in care plans to reduce the risk of people experiencing avoidable harm if they had an epileptic seizure.” from the report
One-to-one support records
needs fixingRecords did not consistently show whether people received their commissioned one-to-one support hours. The manager said people did receive the hours, but the records could not confirm this.
“We noted the registered manager's auditing processes did not include regular checks of these records to enable them to follow up on any discrepancies and to ensure that people were receiving the appropriate amount of one to one support.” from the report
Regulatory notification
needs fixingThe CQC had not been told that a local authority had authorised a decision to deprive a person of some aspects of their liberty. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“However, we did note that the CQC had not been notified of a decision by the local authorising body to deprive a person of certain aspects of their liberty.” from the report
Daily records
minorSome daily records contained little information about meaningful activities. Inspectors were told people led active lives, but the records did not always show this.
“Whilst some of these records were completed in detail, there were also days that recorded very little in relation to any meaningful activity that people had completed that day.” from the report
- 01How are Mental Capacity Act assessments and best-interest decisions now recorded for each person?
- 02What individual instructions are in place for supporting each person with epilepsy during and after a seizure?
- 03How do you record and check that each person's commissioned one-to-one support hours have been provided?
- 04What action was taken after the CQC was not notified about the authorised deprivation of liberty?
- 05How are daily activities recorded, and how do you make sure records reflect what people actually do?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 January 2017 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 Summerlands
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 2010.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.