The inspection took place on 28 June and was unannounced. The inspection continued on 29 June 2016 and this was announced. Summer Hill Residential Home provided personal care with accommodation to 15 elderly people. The service was a two story house with eight bedrooms on the ground floor and seven on the first floor all of which were en suite. There was a large communal living area and separate dining room which both led off the hallway. People accessed the first floor using a lift or the stair way. There was a large enclosed level access garden and patio area which was from French doors in the living area.
The service had a registered manager in place. 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.
People, relatives, a health professional and staff told us that the service was safe. Staff were able to tell us how they would report and recognise signs of abuse and had received training in safeguarding.
Care plans were in place which detailed the care and support people needed to remain safe whilst having control and making choices about how they chose to live their lives. Each person had a care file which also included guidelines to make sure staff supported people in a way they preferred. Risk assessments were completed, regularly reviewed and accurate.
Medicines were managed safely, were securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained to give medicines.
Staff had a good knowledge of people’s support needs and received regular mandatory training as well as training in response to people’s changing needs for example one person was displaying behaviour which challenged the service and staff were being trained to support them safely.
Staff told us they received regular supervisions which were carried out by the manager. We reviewed records which confirmed this. Staff told us that they found these useful.
Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act and training records showed that they had received training in this. Capacity assessments were completed and best interest decisions recorded as and when appropriate. Summerhill had a set of Aims and Values which put people in the centre of the care they received. These reflected giving people who use the service control over their daily life, safety and dignity. Staff and management demonstrated these using person centred approaches by acknowledging them, promoting choice and talking them through the support they were providing in an empowering way.
People and relatives told us that the food was good. We reviewed the menu which showed that people were offered a variety of healthy meals. We saw that food was regularly discussed in resident meetings and people’s likes and dislikes recorded in their care plans. The chef told us that the majority of meals are home cooked.
People were supported to access healthcare appointments as and when required and staff followed professional’s advice when supporting people with ongoing care needs. Records we reviewed showed that people had recently seen the GP, District nurse, mental health team and a chiropodist.
People told us that staff were caring. We observed positive interactions between staff, managers and people. This showed us that people felt comfortable with staff supporting them.
Staff treated people in a dignified manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s likes, dislikes and interests. This meant that people were supported by staff who knew them well.
People had their care and support needs assessed before being admitted to the service and care packages reflected needs identified in these. We saw that these were regularly reviewed by the service with people, families and health professionals when available.
People, staff and relatives were encouraged to give feedback about the care and support provided in the home. We reviewed the people satisfaction survey report for 2016 which contained mainly positive feedback. This report reflected results from feedback questionnaires sent to people. The results had been analysed and actions were set for the registered and service manager to follow up. We saw that the actions identified from this were being addressed.
There was an active system in place for recording complaints which captured the detail and evidenced steps taken to address them. We saw that there were no outstanding complaints in place. This demonstrated that the service was open to people’s comments and acted promptly when concerns were raised.
People and staff felt that the service was well led. The registered and service manager both encouraged an open working environment. A staff member told us, “The service manager keeps the team motivated, we look forward to working here”.
The service understood its reporting responsibilities to CQC and other regulatory bodies they provided information in a timely way.
Quality monitoring audits were completed by the service manager and monthly management reports were sent to the registered manager. The registered manager analysed the detail and identified trends, actions and learning which was then shared as appropriate. This showed that there were good monitoring systems in place to ensure the service improved. Safe quality care and support was provided to people.