Summerfield House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

During our assessment of this key question, we found the rating has improved from requires improvement to good. People were supported by staff who were kind and gentle. Feedback indicated people were treated with kindness and respect. Staff had established positive and caring relationships with people they supported and their family members which helped them deliver person centred care and meet their individual needs. Staff knew people's routines had positive interactions providing dignity and care throughout.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People said they were well treated by staff. This was echoed by relatives. One person said they very happy with the care and described the staff as, “so kind and gentle.” Another person said the staff were pleasant and always had time for them. One relative said the care their family member received was very good and the staff had time for a chat with them both. Another relative said, “Nothing is ever too much trouble for the staff, they are always so caring and smiling. “A further relative said staff were very respectful to them and their family member. They said the staff always spoke kindly to their relative and when they needed to carry out personal care they ensured this was carried out with as much dignity as possible. One relative was concerned about the continence products provided for their family member. We discussed this with the manager and checked the person’s care records. The person had been assessed by the continence team who provided the continence products they assessed were required. The home kept an emergency supply of continence pads. Care records showed regular continence checks were carried out by staff day and night. Feedback was sought in August 2024 from people and their relatives. These included compliments and the kindness of the staff, their positive interactions and the good relationships staff had developed with people.

The manager told us all staff had received training in dignity and respect. This had been followed up by observations of practices and supervision to ensure staff were putting the training into practice. Photographs of staff who were dignity champions were displayed in the home. A dignity and respect board were displayed on each floor serving as a reminder of these values.

Outside professionals had been visiting the home regularly since the last inspection. They provided positive feedback about the staff who they observed to be caring and following person-centred practices.

We observed staff were kind and caring, treating people with respect and maintaining their dignity. We saw staff interacting positively with people overwhelmingly, displaying kindness and compassion. People looked content and were smiling and relaxed as a result of positive staff interactions and reinforcement. Staff were quick to intervene to maintain dignity, for example following a spilt drink or adjusting clothing. Staff had a good regard for people’s privacy, ensuring confidentiality when discussing sensitive information.

People were treated as individuals. One person told us they were able to decide what they wanted to do, and the staff never put any pressure on them to do anything they didn’t want to do. Another person said they loved to have a bath and had one at least twice a week but could have more often if they wanted. A relative said, in recent months, they had noticed a big improvement in their family member’s appearance. Their hair was now washed and always looks tidy; fingernails were much cleaner and well kept; clothing was always clean, and colour coordinated.

The manager said they had invested in building an activities team who were trained and understood how to provide activities that were personalised and meaningful to people. They said although a weekly schedule was planned, the activities team adapted this according to people’s needs and preferences on the day.

We observed staff understood people’s individual needs. Staff used various verbal and non-verbal communication techniques, tailoring their approach depending on the individual's needs. This included respecting people’s preferences around the volume and type of activities they got involved in. During our site visits we saw people enjoying a variety of activities, some on a 1:1 basis and others in a group. Activities were tailored to meet individual needs and had a positive effect on people. We saw an activity coordinator kneel beside one person chatting quietly and discretely looking at a magazine together. The person enjoyed the interaction and continued to chat away. We saw another activity involving 5 people painting. The atmosphere was calm, and people looked genuinely engaged with the activity. Staff were skilled in triggering and encouraging conversations between those taking part in the activity. Other activities we observed were games with balloons, singing and playing musical instruments, completing jigsaws.

Processes promoted treating people as individuals. Care records were clear and person-centred with information about people’s likes, preferences, and history to promote good person-centred care. Detailed information on people’s communication, social and religious needs was recorded. Activity schedules were displayed throughout the home in a pictorial format. Minutes from resident's meetings showed people were involved in planning activities both inside and outside the home.

People felt they had choice and control over their care and daily lives. People said they could get up when they wanted. One person told us it was never a problem if they wanted to have a lie in. They said staff came in the morning and asked if they were ready to get up or would like a lie in. If the person wanted a lie in, staff would come back about half an hour later. They said the same choice was offered at bedtime. Another person said they liked the fact they could stay in their room if they wanted rather than go to the lounge. This was echoed by another person who said they preferred their own company and were pleased staff respected their choice and never pressured them to go to the lounge or dining room. People said there were lots of different activities which they enjoyed. Several people said they really enjoyed it when people came in to sing to them or sometimes people brought animals in. One relative said their family member couldn’t join in with the physical activities but really ‘came alive’ when any musical activity took place.

A keyworker system was in place. The manager and staff told us this worked well, giving people and their relatives a named staff member with whom they could discuss their care, preferences, and any concerns.

Staff empowered people to make choices about their day to day lives. Staff used visual aids to explain choices, for example around drinks, mealtime options and activities. People’s preferences were respected, for example one person was given a second meal after they were not interested in the first option.

People and their relatives were involved in care plans. The service had a keyworker system and there was evidence staff engaged with people and their families regularly. There was evidence that people's independence and choice were promoted. Care records were written respectfully, and captured people's moods and daily lives, including a range of activities and individualized opportunities. Information on key relationships and social preferences had been sought to help people keep in touch with their loved ones.

People and relatives said staff were available and responsive to their needs. People said staff treated them with respect and maintained their dignity.

The manager told us the management team carried out daily walk rounds which included observations of staff practice and checking response times to call bells. Our discussions with staff showed they knew people well and understood the need to respond promptly when people asked for or showed signs of requiring assistance.

Staff were attentive to people’s immediate needs. For example, when people were communicating a need for help, staff noticed and took immediate action. Staff were vigilant in monitoring both communal areas and bedrooms to ensure people’s immediate needs were responded to in a timely way.

Staff told us they now felt supported and empowered to carry out their roles. They said management were supportive and approachable. They felt the manager and unit managers / team leaders had good oversight of all parts of the service. Staff spoke positively about how they could play a part in driving forward improvements.

Processes had been implemented to support staff and enable their wellbeing. A confidential whistleblowing line was available to staff 24 hours. An external company providing a support and counselling service was available free of charge for all staff, providing a confidential safe forum on a 1-1 basis for staff to discuss and share any worries or concerns. The supervision matrix showed staff received regular supervision.