Summerfield Court

Updated 12 June 2018

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 comprehensive inspection took place on 24 April and 01 May 2018. It was unannounced on the first day and was carried out by one inspector. The second day was announced.

Before our inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including previous inspection reports and statutory notifications sent to us by the provider. Statutory notifications contain information about changes, events or incidents that the provider is legally required to send us. We also contacted the local authority, other stakeholders, and Healthwatch to gather their feedback and views about the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection, we spoke with three people who used the service, three care workers, the registered manager and the operations manager. We spent time looking at documents and records relating to people's care and the management of the service. We looked in detail at four people's care plans, medicine records, three staff personal files and a variety of policies and procedures developed and implemented by the provider.

Updated 12 June 2018

Summerfield Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care under a contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

Summerfield Court accommodates up to 17 people in a rehabilitation home for people who have acquired a brain injury. At the time of our inspection, 17 people were using the service. All bedrooms within the home had en-suite facilities and the provider also had an annex with three apartments which provided a more independent living environment for people planning to move into assisted living accommodation in the community.

This inspection took place on 24 April and 01 May 2018. The inspection was unannounced on the first day. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. The second day was announced.

A registered manager was 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.

Records were not always accurate to show when actions had been taken to improve the quality of care being provided and therefore, we have made a recommendation about records management.

People told us they felt safe and staff had a clear understanding of how to protect people from abuse or harm. Safeguarding and whistleblowing policies were in place which staff followed should concerns need to be raised.

Medicines were managed safely and we saw people received their medicines with signatures to show when they had been administered. ‘As required’ medicines were administered when needed and some people were supported to self-administer.

Risk assessment were completed and regularly updated to reflect people’s needs. Accidents and incidents were reported and actions taken to mitigate future risks. Safety checks had been carried out to ensure the home was safe and regularly monitored.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Robust systems were in place to ensure people working in the home were of suitable character.

The provider followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) guidance with capacity assessments, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications made and court of protection orders followed. Staff also understood MCA guidance and supported people to make decisions when possible.

People were supported with their nutrition and health needs. Specific dietary plans had been created with health professionals for those that required further support. Health care professionals were involved to ensure people were supported in their recovery and advise staff on practice when needed.

Staff received sufficient training to ensure they could support people’s needs. Supervisions and annual appraisals were completed to promote development and staff told us they felt supported.

People living in the home spoke positively about the staff that supported them and thought of them as friends. People told us they were involved in all aspects of their care and were provided explanations to ensure they understood their care.

Staff respected people’s privacy, dignity and preferences. People’s wishes, likes and dislikes were considered when developing care plans and people were encouraged to remain independent to aid their recovery.

Care plans were person centred and focused on people’s independence and encouragement to move on from the home to assisted living environments within the community. Care plans were regularly reviewed in collaboration with people who were offered choices about how they wished to live their life.

The use of technology and accessible information was available for those people who needed it and improved communication between people.

Activities were actively encouraged to ensure people did not become social isolated and to support people to partake in hobbies or interests they enjoyed.

People knew the registered manager and felt actions would be taken should any concerns be raised. People and staff told us the registered manager had an open door policy and was approachable.

Audits and surveys were completed to gather people’s views and ensure improvements were made however, records did not show the actions taken.

Monthly meetings for staff and people living in the home took place to ensure people could express their views and be informed of any changes within the home.

The provider continuously sought to improve people’s quality of life by supporting them in their goals to aid recovery and enhance independence skills to move into the community.