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
- Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection prevention and control arrangements, including safe use of PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and support for people and staff during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 October 2020. Inspectors looked only at infection prevention and control measures as part of a coronavirus pandemic review.
The home was caring for 28 people, although it could accommodate up to 31. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks.
The report also describes staff training, support for staff wellbeing and activities that helped people stay involved and receive personal care during the pandemic.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infection, including visitor controls, testing, PPE and hygiene.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received training in PPE, wound care and giving insulin. PPE skills were checked in practice.
“Staff had been trained in donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) and their competency assessed.” from the report
Support for people
People were included in safety training and received hairdressing and manicures when outside professional visits were not possible.
“People that live at the service had been included in training sessions to increase their safety, such as hand hygiene and infection control.” from the report
Support for staff wellbeing
The home provided mental health information, had trained mental health first aiders and had started structured conversations with staff during the pandemic.
“The registered manager had started structured conversations with staff, recognising the difficulties of the pandemic to support them.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently preventing and managing infection outbreaks?
- 02How do you manage visits and assess individual risks for visitors?
- 03How are people admitted safely, and what testing is carried out for new residents and staff?
- 04How do you check that staff remain competent when using PPE and giving insulin?
- 05What are the home's current arrangements for supporting staff mental health and wellbeing?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 November 2020 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, May 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care and outstanding leadership, but noted some medicines and record-keeping checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 9 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, visitors, relatives, health professionals and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training, accidents, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management overall, personalised care, respectful staff and activities based on people's interests.
Well-led was rated Outstanding, improving from Good at the previous inspection. Inspectors found strong leadership, regular checks, staff involvement in improvements and links with the local community. They also identified some shortfalls, including an error in one person's medicine records, incomplete employment histories for some staff and people not always being involved in their electronic care plans.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staff were also available to spend time socialising with people.
“People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring, patient and respectful. Staff supported privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People continued to be supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities reflected people's hobbies, interests and abilities. The home used feedback from people to change and expand activities.
“Each person had an 'Activity Profile' which described different activities they enjoyed and alternatives they could be offered.” from the report
Strong improvement culture
The owners and management encouraged staff to research better ways of supporting people. They used audits, feedback and outside specialists to make changes.
“Staff were encouraged to complete research projects to try and improve the support people were receiving.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousChecks had not identified an error in one person's records for variable medicine doses. This is important to clarify because the report also says medicines were otherwise managed safely.
“Systems to identify errors in variable dosages had not identified an error in one person's medicine records.” from the report
Staff employment histories
needs fixingNot all staff had a full employment history recorded during recruitment. The provider later supplied further checks and updated its application process.
“Improvements could be made because not all staff had a full employment history.” from the report
Environmental risk checks
needs fixingInspectors found occasions when environmental risks had not been fully considered. The report does not give further detail about the specific risks.
“There were occasions when environmental risks to people had not always been fully considered.” from the report
Involvement in care plans
needs fixingDuring the move to electronic care plans, people were not always involved in writing their plans. Some people and relatives were also unaware that they had been involved.
“They were not always involving people in the care plans.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to prevent errors in records for variable medicine doses?
- 02How do you make sure every new staff member has a complete employment history and the required checks?
- 03What environmental risks were identified after the inspection, and what has been done about them?
- 04How are residents and relatives now involved in writing and updating electronic care plans?
- 05How do you respond when people or relatives have mixed views about the food?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive remained Good, while Well-led improved from Good to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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.
Every inspection of Summerlands
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 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.