CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at SummerView
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2021
SummerView was rated Requires Improvement after inspectors found infection control and management oversight problems.
This was a focused inspection following a COVID-19 outbreak. Inspectors visited on 24 and 30 November 2020, observed care, spoke with people and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home had enough staff and staff knew people well. People were supported with choices, activities and contact with families. Staff understood how to report safeguarding concerns, and there were no current safeguarding concerns.
However, inspectors found serious gaps in infection control. Masks were not always worn correctly, used PPE and contaminated linen were not handled safely, cleaning records were incomplete, and visitors were not screened. Medicines records, risk assessments and care records also needed improvement.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in October 2018 to Requires Improvement. This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other ratings were carried forward from the earlier comprehensive inspection.
Staff knew people well
People’s care needs were attended to by staff who understood their preferences and how they liked to be supported.
“People's care needs were attended to by staff who knew them well and how they liked to be supported.” from the report
Enough staff and suitable recruitment
The home reported having enough staff, and inspectors found the recruitment checks were in place.
“The provider had an effective recruitment process in place and carried out all the required checks to ensure staff were suitable for the role employed for.” from the report
Choice and independence
People received person-centred support and were helped to make choices, reach goals and continue activities during the pandemic.
“People received person centred care that was inclusive and promoted their independence and choices.” from the report
Family contact continued
Staff helped people stay in touch with families through video calls, garden visits and regular email communication.
“Families had been supported to maintain contact through video calls, and visits were supported in the garden when possible.” from the report
Infection control was unsafe
seriousInspectors saw masks worn incorrectly, PPE left uncovered, and contaminated linen carried through the home without the correct PPE change or disposal.
“We observed staff to not have masks in place correctly and were wearing masks under their chin or below their nose.” from the report
Visitors were not screened
seriousThere were no systems to record visitor health checks, temperature checks or contact and trace details.
“There were no systems in place to screen external visitors who entered the service.” from the report
Cleaning checks were incomplete
needs fixingCleaning rotas had not been kept up to date, and inspectors found some dirty or contaminated bathroom equipment.
“There was no evidence that cleaning was being regularly completed as staff had stopped signing the cleaning rota since April.” from the report
Management checks were not robust
seriousAudits had not identified several problems, including infection control failures, outdated medicine information and unreviewed care plans.
“Governance and oversight of the service was not effective.” from the report
Some medicine and care records needed updating
needs fixingSome medicine counts were unclear, PRN instructions were missing, and pandemic risk assessments and health passports had not been shown to be reviewed.
“Where people received as required medicine or PRN we found there were no protocols in place with the medicine records to guide staff when to administer these medicines.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to PPE use, disposal and the handling of contaminated linen since the inspection?
- 02How do you now check cleaning is completed, including frequently touched areas and bathroom equipment?
- 03How are visitors screened and their contact details recorded?
- 04How are audits now identifying problems with medicines, PRN instructions and care plans?
- 05Who is responsible for the home’s day-to-day management, and how often is the registered manager present?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led after a COVID-19 outbreak; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 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.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no serious risks or concerns identified.
The CQC made an unannounced inspection visit on 9 October 2018. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also checked care files, medicines records, staff recruitment files, audits and policies.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems, regular care reviews and support for people's health, choices and independence.
The home was supporting five people and could accommodate up to six people with learning disabilities and possible mental health needs. Its overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection.
Consistent staffing
The home had a consistent staff team and did not need to use agency staff. Recruitment records included references, employment histories and DBS checks.
“People received care from a consistent staff team.” from the report
Supporting independence
Staff encouraged people to make informed choices and do things for themselves, using adapted equipment where needed.
“Staff always worked hard to promote people's independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed choices.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans recorded how each person communicated best, including the use of visual prompts, sounds and gestures.
“We saw that the staff were very good at ensuring people were able to communicate in whatever form they found comfortable.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, use local services and maintain relationships with relatives.
“People were supported to access activities that they enjoyed such as, attending day centres, swimming, horse riding and activities in the local community.” from the report
Listening to feedback
The manager gathered views from people and relatives through meetings, questionnaires and regular contact, and used this information to review the service.
“People were actively involved in improving the service they received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Has the planned wet room for personal care now been completed?
- 02How will you make sure the staff team remains consistent and that agency staff are not needed?
- 03How do you record and review the communication methods that work best for each person?
- 04How are people involved in choosing activities, meals and changes to the home?
- 05How are care plans reviewed with the person and their relatives when needs or preferences change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC areas; the report says the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 November 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 SummerView
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.