Archived: Summerhill Care Home

Updated 21 April 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 27 January 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by the adult social care lead inspector, a pharmacist specialist advisor and an expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

The pharmacist special advisor carried out a detailed assessment of medicine management, storage, administration and disposal. As part of the inspection we also looked at records and care plans relating to the use of medicines.

During our inspection we spoke with 12 people who lived in the home, five relatives, three nurses, five care staff, five ancillary staff, including, laundry, domestic and activities staff. We spoke with the registered manager, the suite managers and also a visiting Nurse Practitioner. We observed the care and support staff provided to people in the communal areas of the home. We spoke with people in communal areas and in private in their bedrooms. We looked at the care plans and records for nine people and tracked their care. We looked at records that related to how the home was being managed.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We also contacted the local authority and social workers who came into contact with the home to get their views of the home. We looked at the information we held about notifications sent to us about incidents affecting the service and people living there. We looked at the information we held on safeguarding referrals, concerns raised with us and applications the manager had made under deprivation of liberty safeguards.

Updated 21 April 2015

This unannounced inspection took place on 27January 2015. We last inspected Summerhill Nursing and Residential Home in September 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the regulations that we assessed.

Summerhill Nursing and Residential Home (Summerhill) provides nursing and residential care for up to 71 older people. The home is divided into 4 suites: Buttermere for general nursing care, Windermere for nursing care of people living with dementia, Grasmere for high dependency personal care with mental health needs and Thirlmere for people with personal care needs only. The home is on two floors that can be reached either by a passenger lift or by stairs. All the four have single bedrooms with en suite facilities.

There are secure garden areas to the side and rear of the home that are wheelchair accessible and private and have outdoor seating for the people living there. There is parking available at the front and side of the home for staff and visitors. The home was being well maintained and we found that all areas were clean and free from unpleasant odours.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the time of the inspection there were 70 people living in the home. Those we spoke with told us that they felt safe living there and there were enough staff available when they needed them. Friends and relatives of people living at Summerhill we spoke with told us that were satisfied with the care provided and had no concerns about their relatives wellbeing. The registered provider had a procedure to receive and respond to complaints. People living there and visiting relatives told us they knew there was a procedure to make a complaint and could speak to the manager about anything that concerned them.

People were able to follow their own interests, see their friends and families as they wanted and go out into the community with support. All the visitors we spoke with told us that staff made them welcome when they came to visit or when they wanted to speak with them. The atmosphere in the home was informal, open and people were regularly asked for their views of the home and their comments were acted on to make changes they wanted.

The staff on duty we spoke to knew about the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and daily lives and respected their wishes. People had a choice of meals and drinks, which they told us were good and that they enjoyed. We saw that people who needed support to eat and drink received this in a supportive and discreet manner.

The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to protect the rights of people who were not able to make important decisions themselves. The service worked well with health care professionals and external agencies such as social services and mental health services to provide appropriate care to meet people’s physical and emotional needs.

We saw that people were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives as much as possible. Risk assessments were in place to allow people to keep their independence in ways that mattered to them such as accessing outdoor spaces.

Effective systems were in place for the recruitment of staff and for their induction and ongoing training and development. The care and nursing staff employed were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the action to take if they were concerned about the safety or welfare of an individual. They told us they would be confident reporting any concerns to a senior person in the home.

There were quality monitoring systems in place to assess and review the quality of the services provided. We saw from the audits that had been done that the registered manager was identifying areas of service provision that needed to be improved to meet their internal quality standards.