Summerfield House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

During our assessment of this key question, we found the rating has improved from requires improvement to good. People told us they were happy and received the care they required. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and wishes. There were systems in place to monitor aspects of the service and the quality of care provided. People were supported to take part in events. People’s equality and diversity needs were respected and met.

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 told us they were happy with the care they received, and this was echoed by relatives. Comments included: "I’m very satisfied with things" and “It’s like a hotel here and you get things whenever you want them.” One relative said the care her family member received was very good, the staff had time for a chat with the family member and relative. Another relative said, “I’m now actively involved in family member's care, whereas I wasn't before.”

Staff knew what good person-centred care looked like and showed a commitment to providing this for the people using the service. The manager told us about the resident of the day system they had implemented. The nurse and senior care staff on each floor are responsible for ensuring the person’s care is planned and implemented in accordance with their wishes and involving the people who know them best with the consent of the service user.

Observations showed a person-centred approach to care. Staff tailored their approach including how they communicated with people according to their individual needs and abilities. We saw staff engaging with people about their interests, prompting discussion. People were kept occupied in meaningful activity reinforcing their identity and interests.

People and relatives felt care was well-co-ordinated and said staff supported them in accessing any specialist support they may need. One relative said their family member was susceptible to urine infections and staff worked with other health care professionals to look at ways in which these could be reduced involving them and their family member in discussions.

Staff and the manager told us how they worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people received joined-up care.

Health professionals we met on site said there had been massive improvements at the home. They said communication with staff had improved and was now ‘10 times better’. Recording on charts was much improved and any information they requested from staff was readily available.

Effective systems were in place to ensure the different agencies involved in people’s care worked together so that people received continuity in their care and treatment. This was reflected in people’s care records.

People and relatives said communication had improved in the last few months. They said they were now kept informed and updated about any changes. Relatives said staff understood their family member’s communication needs and used different methods to ensure information was accessible to all.

The manager had shared their email address with people’s relatives ensuring they had a direct line of contact to be able to share any information about their family member. Staff spoke about the keyworker system which provided a named staff member for people and their relatives and residents enabling them to work together in their chosen method of communication.

Information was available and provided in a variety of formats including large print and picture menus and activity schedules. The home had a diverse staff team who have second languages to facilitate communication where needed. The home also has access to interpreters from the surgery language line and keeps all data secure with passwords and limited access for those who need it at a given point in time.

People and relatives spoke of being more involved in all aspects of the service. They said they had opportunities to give feedback which was listened to and acted upon. One relative mentioned the notice board where you sign in which tells people what is happening/coming up. They said this was now up to date, whereas it wasn’t before. Another relative spoke about the regular resident's meetings and how useful these were for giving and receiving information.

The manager told us they sought feedback from people in a variety of ways including residents and relative's meetings, surveys, and the resident of the day process. The manager had provided families with her email address and operated an open-door policy.

Processes were in place to listen to and involve people. Meetings and surveys were regularly carried out with people and relatives. Their feedback was collated into a "You said, we did" format which was displayed in the home showing what action had been taken and what was planned. The home also has a suggestions forum and a monthly newsletter providing updates on all aspects of the home. The complaints procedure was displayed, and a summary log maintained including details of action taken. Care plans were clear and person-centred and included clear information on how people liked their care to be delivered. This included detailed information on how to meet physical, social, and emotional needs. There was evidence of close involvement of people and/or their relatives in care planning and care-related decisions.

People and relatives we spoke with said staff supported them in accessing care, support, and treatment when they needed it.

The manager told us people were able to access services equitably. The manager had implemented 'Resident of the Day' which provided people, and their relatives, with opportunities to review their recent care and support. The manager and staff had worked hard to improve communication and were now working alongside partners to ensure people were able to access more specialist support and facilities as part of their care.

Feedback we received from partners was overwhelmingly positive about the recent improvements made at the service. The LA and ICB said the improvements in partnership working ensured people had access to the support, care, and treatment they needed.

Processes were in place to support equity in access. People were able to access care and support when they needed it. The home was purpose built providing spacious accommodation and equipment providing accessibility for all.

People felt they were treated fairly, and their human rights were respected, and relatives echoed this view. One relative told us how their family member, who had been non-verbal, had started to talk a bit now. They said, “I think it's because she’s settled and feels safe, she is definitely happier.”

Staff and the management team understood the importance of people’s diversity and promote a culture of inclusion.

The provider had equality, diversity, and human rights policies in place to protect people and staff against discrimination.  All staff received equality and diversity training.

The expert by experience did not talk to people and their relatives about planning for the future or end of life care. One relative mentioned that end of life care planning had been discussed with them but said they had not been happy discussing this. We reviewed their family member’s death and dying care plan which showed the relative had been involved and had stated they will share details when the time is appropriate.

When we carried out the site visit the manager told us none of the people in the home were currently approaching the end of their life. The manager said death and dying care plans were in place, but many relatives found these discussions difficult. The manager said they accessed specialist support from the palliative care team to assist with symptom management, anticipatory medications, and family support to ensure they are actively involved with their family member towards the end of their life.

Appropriate planning took place for the future. Care plans showed people, relatives and, where appropriate, health professionals had been involved in discussions about people’s future. These considered people’s cultural and religious needs. Plans showed what was in place for peoples preferences and this was also referenced on the clinical risk boards on each floor.