CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Summers
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2019
The Summers was rated Good overall, but staffing was not always safe and Safe was rated Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over 30 and 31 January 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, staff files, policies and service records.
People were described as receiving friendly, kind and person-centred care. Inspectors found good care in the areas of effectiveness, kindness, responsiveness and leadership. Medicines, risk assessments, food, activities, complaints and end of life care were managed well.
The main concern was staffing. Inspectors found there were not always enough staff to provide safe care, and the staffing tool and call monitoring system needed improvement. The provider increased staffing immediately after the inspection and introduced a new call monitoring policy.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed friendly interactions that created a family atmosphere.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, interests, preferences and needs. Staff adapted support to people's choices.
“Care plans were person centred.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People were offered activities throughout the week, and staff checked who wanted to join in. People and relatives could also give feedback through meetings and surveys.
“People had access to a range of interesting and fun activities each day of the week.” from the report
Good medicines management
Inspectors found medicines were organised and records were complete. An external pharmacy audit had also confirmed safe medicines management.
“People received the medicines they required as medicine administration records (MARs) were correctly filled out with no gaps.” from the report
Positive leadership
The management team carried out regular audits and acted on issues found. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views.
“Regular audits were carried out to monitor and assure the quality of the care that people received.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousInspectors found there were not always enough staff to provide safe care. The provider increased staffing by one carer each day and added an activities co-ordinator after the inspection.
“There were not always enough staff to ensure people were cared for and supported safely.” from the report
Staffing and call monitoring systems
needs fixingThe staffing dependency tool did not correctly show how many staff were needed, and the call monitoring system lacked a clear policy. The provider was asked to ensure both systems became established in daily practice.
“We found that the staffing dependency tool needed to be developed to ensure that it correctly reflected the number of staff required at the service.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are on duty during the day and night now, and how does this compare with the staffing levels at the inspection?
- 02How do you use the staffing dependency tool to decide how many staff are needed each shift?
- 03How are call response times monitored now, and what happens if a call is not answered promptly?
- 04What changes have been made since the inspection to make sure the new staffing arrangements are working safely?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans, activities and complaints?
This was an unannounced scheduled comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and the previous overall rating in June 2016 was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 March 2019 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 The Summers
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 August 2013.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.