About the service:

Summerdyne Nursing Home is a residential home, providing accommodation for people who require nursing and personal care. The service provides accommodation and personal care to older adults. There were 26 people living with dementia at the home at the time of our inspection visit.

What life is like for people using this service:

•People enjoyed living at Summerdyne Nursing Home and felt safe and reassured by the support they received from staff they liked.

•Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and how to report their concerns. Staff recognised the risks to people's health, safety and well-being and how to support them safely. Where relevant, specialist equipment was used to move people safely.

•People were supported by staff when needed.

•Staff recruitment processes included a check of their background to review their suitability to work at the home.

•People received support with their medicines. Regular checks were undertaken to ensure people received the correct support from staff who had been assessed as competent to give people their medicines. Checks also included how the medicines were stored.

•Staff understood and practised infection control techniques.

•The manager ensured people's care was based on best practice and staff had the correct training to meet people's needs.

•Care and nursing staff training was reviewed to ensure staff training was in line with current best practice.

•Staff were offered guidance and support through supervision and staff meetings.

•People were offered choices at mealtimes and staff understood which people required support and ensured they received this.

•People were supported to attend healthcare appointments. Healthcare professionals were assured that advice was correctly followed by staff and incorporated into people’s care.

• People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted.

•People and their families were involved in planning their care with support from staff.

•Staff supported people to enjoy a range of activities which reflected people's individual interests.

•People and their families understood how to complain if they wanted to, but felt they had not needed to.

•Staff felt supported within their working environment and felt part of a close-knit team.

•Staff worked together with the manager and families to ensure people's care was continually

monitored, reviewed and reflected people's needs. New systems had been introduced to further review people’s care.

•The manager and staff worked with other stakeholders to improve people's experience of care.

We found the service met the characteristics of a "Good" rating in all areas; More information is available in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: Good (published 1 March 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

This inspection took place on 11 and 15 January 2016 and was unannounced. Summerdyne Nursing Home provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 27 people. There were 21 people living there at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 who lived at the home and their relatives told us they had no concerns about the care provided. We were told staff were caring and promoted people’s independence while they provided the support people needed to meet their individual care needs. People had choices available to them in how they were cared for and how they spent their time.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff were aware of how to recognise abuse and knew how to report this. Staff were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual risks and were able to respond to these needs.

People were able to make choices about their day to day care and staff supported people to make decisions. The registered manager was aware some people needed to be assessed by staff from the local authority to ensure their personal liberty was not deprived in an unlawful way.

People told us there were sufficient staff on duty to meet their needs. Staff knew people well and took people’s preferences into account. People liked staff and were seen laughing with them as well as smiling while care and support was provided.

People were encouraged to eat and drink. People were shown food available to them and were able to make a choice. Drinks were available throughout the day.

We saw that people had access to healthcare professionals when they needed them and action was taken as needed to maintain people’s well-being.

People were involved in planning their care and their views were taken into account. People felt listened to and knew how to raise concerns if they needed to do so.

The registered manager was well liked and demonstrated leadership skills. Staff were supported and trained in order to meet the needs of people. The registered manager and provider carried out checks and audits to explore people’s experience of the care provided.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people who were using the service. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with two people who used the service, three relatives and four staff who were supporting them and from looking at records. This evidence helped us answer the five questions detailed below.

Is the service safe?

Staff treated people were treated with dignity and respect. People told us they felt safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding and demonstrated they would take appropriate action if abuse was suspected. We observed a relaxed atmosphere and positive relationships between people who used the service, relatives and staff. There were risk management plans in place for people and health and safety. The premises were well maintained and repairs made where necessary so that they remained safe for use. We found that staffing numbers ensured people received appropriate care when they wanted it. Staff had received training for their respective roles to promote their competency for delivering safe care and treatments for people who used the service.

CQC monitors the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. The manager assured us relevant staff would be trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs had been assessed and care plans were in place. There was evidence of people and or their relatives or an advocate being involved with the development of care plans. We found that other assessments had been carried out to enable staff to appropriately monitor people’s health. For example; people’s nutritional needs, skin and mobility. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people’s care and support needs and that they knew them well. People and their relatives we spoke with all said they received the standard of care that matched their needs. Staff encouraged and supported people in leading interesting and enriched lifestyles through social activities.

Is the service caring?

The people we spoke with were positive about the way they were cared for and supported. A relative told us: "I’m absolutely delighted with the care. The staff are such good carers." People were cared for by kind and attentive staff. We observed people asking staff to do things for them. Staff responded to the requests promptly and efficiently. We observed staff making arrangements to assist people with their preferred activities when they had made a decision about what they wanted to do. People were supported by a team of health and social care professionals who worked closely with staff in providing people's care needs.

Is the service responsive?

Staff respected people’s privacy, they knocked and waited to be invited into their rooms. When people who lived in the home made suggestions for changes these were actioned as far as practically possible. We found evidence that people were able to make choices about their care, activities and day trips. A relative said: “X (person living in the home) goes outside to do gardening.” People’s preferences and interests had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes. We found evidence that staff sought professional advice when they identified concerns about people’s health and safety. Staff recorded the guidance provided by healthcare professionals and followed it to promote people’s health and welfare.

Is the service well led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records showed us that improvements had been made when they were identified through monitoring processes. There were clear processes in place for dealing with complaints. Regular audits had been carried out that enabled staff to make changes that could be of benefit for the people who used the service. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities, the ethos of the service and the quality assurance processes. A team leader told us: “We have a good manager and good staff.” There were clear lines of responsibility and staff knew who they could seek guidance from if they were unsure about something.

We spoke with two people who lived at the home. We also spoke with two relatives of people that used the service. We spoke with the registered manager, an administrator, staff and a visiting health professional.

People that we spoke with were very satisfied with the care they had received. One person said: “I love living here. The staff are here for you if you are troubled or if you want anything”. Another person we spoke said: “I really don’t think I could go anywhere better”. A relative that we spoke with said: “I cannot tell you how wonderful it is here. It's kindness personified”.

We found that people received care and support as planned according to their needs. Staff understood people’s needs and how to give the support that they required.

People were cared for in a safe and clean environment. The premises were suitable for people who required wheelchair access and people were able to access all parts of the home and garden.

Recruitment procedures were in place to make sure that suitable staff were provided to care for people.

People who used the service were supported by staff who were suitably trained and qualified to meet people's needs.

The provider had systems of audits in place to enable them to monitor the quality of the service they provided. This made sure that people received appropriate care and treatment.

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by a practising professional.

Twenty-seven people were living in the home when we visited and we talked with four of them about their experience of living there and a relative of another person.

Some of the people that use the service at Summerdyne Nursing Home have dementia and therefore not everyone was able to tell us about their care. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Some of the people who lived in the home that we spoke with told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity whilst assisting them with their daily routines. For example, one person told us that staff, ‘’always knock my door’’ before they entered and they could close their door whenever they wished.

We found that staff offered people choices of which meal they would like by showing them two plated meals and asked people where they would like to have their meal. We also observed staff provided assistance and support with meals to people who needed it, which was done at each person’s own pace. Other people were encouraged to be as independent as possible by having adapted cutlery to eat their meals with dignity.

Several of the people who lived in the home and the relative of another person that we spoke with told us the meals looked good and they were happy with the meals provided. One person told us, ‘’I like the meals, they are good.’’