Summerley is a residential care home for up to 21 people; all of the people living there have dementia. At the time of our inspection 20 people were living at the home. Accommodation is provided over two floors and communal areas include a sitting room and a dining room.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs. We observed that people were not left waiting for assistance and people were responded to in a timely way.

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure the safe ordering, administration, storage and disposal of medicines. Medicines were managed, given to people as prescribed and disposed of safely.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) appropriate assessments of capacity were carried out.

People said they felt safe at the home. Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and the registered manager monitored people’s needs and adjusted staffing levels as needed. Staff recruitment procedures were safe and ensured that only suitable staff were employed.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the home and the kind and caring manner of the staff. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People’s care plans were individualised and contained information about people’s life history, they reflected people’s choices and preferences. People’s cultural and religious needs were documented and their spiritual needs were met.

People and relatives spoke positively of the home and told us it was well led. A number of audits and checks were used to ensure the effectiveness, safety and quality of the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Summerley Care Home provides care and support for up to 18 older people with a variety of long term conditions and physical disabilities. It is situated in a residential area and in close proximity to the sea front at Felpham, Bognor Regis. At the time of inspection, there were 17 people living at the home.

One inspector carried out this inspection. We considered our findings to answer the questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, the staff who supported them and from the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We spoke to a relative who was visiting during our inspection. They told us, “All the staff seem to know X so well. It’s a relief to know that their safe.”

We saw that potential risks to people were appropriately assessed and planned for. The service routinely screened for risks associated with mobility, falls, nutrition and additional risks specific to the individual. There were instructions for staff on how to reduce risks to people in these care areas.

People were protected against the risks of abuse as the provider ensured staff received appropriate training. Staff we spoke with knew the different types of abuse that might occur and the signs that might indicate abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibility to report abuse and told us they felt confident to do so. We saw information was displayed within the service with contact details for external agencies such as CQC and safeguarding team.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. We looked at staff records and found that appropriate checks were made before staff began work. We found that the provider had taken appropriate steps to ensure staff were qualified and competent to carry out their role.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted the Manager demonstrated that they knew their responsibilities in respect of this.

Is the service effective?

People confirmed that they were happy with the care and support provided. One person told us, "The staff are all very nice. I always have help.” Another person told us, “It works well.”

People's health and care needs were assessed and people and their relatives were consulted in planning their care. Daily records showed that care was delivered in line with people's care plans. Staff we spoke with demonstrated that they knew people’s care and support needs well and the way in which individuals preferred their care to be delivered.

Specialist needs such as dietary needs and pressure care had been identified in care plans where required. We saw that people received visits from health professionals such as district nurses and their GP.

Is the service caring?

People told us, “The staff are all very nice. They talk to me nicely." Another person told us, “I do like this place very much.”

Relatives told us that care, “Spreads beyond residents, they care for us. It has a family feeling.” They told us the atmosphere was positive when they visited and described the service as, “A happy place, a lot of fun.”

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home as it was a small home and they were able to get to know people who used the service very well. They told us, “It is family orientated, we all sit together.”

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff.

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We observed staff asking people if they needed any help, engaging in conversations, joining in singing with one person and offering reassurance to another. We observed staff and people shared a joke and laughed together. There was a positive and warm atmosphere.

We saw in the minutes of a staff meeting that staff who supported people with morning routines were encouraged to, `Spend time chatting about day to day things that might be happening that day.`

Is the service responsive?

We found that there were regular residents meetings. In addition there were also relatives meetings that took place. We saw a that regular satisfaction surveys were undertaken and evidence that the provider had acted upon feedback received.

Relatives described the management team as very approachable and told us action was taken if they raised an issue.

The provider undertook regular health and safety audits in order to identify assess and manage risks relating to the health, wealth and safety of people who used the service. We saw that the provider took action to ensure people were supported within a safe service.

Is the service well-led?

The staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They told us that they felt confident in being able to deliver the care and support people needed. Staff told us they felt supported in their role.

We spoke with two people living at the home. Both were satisfied the care and support they received and were happy living at Summerley Care Home. One person told us, "I can have no complaints. The staff are wonderful". Another said, "It's not as good as your own home obviously, but it's the next best thing". A visitor said,"Our relative isn't easy to deal with at the moment but they (staff) know just what to say". We noted that the home employed two activities co-ordinators; the people we spoke with were happy with the number and range of activities on offer.

We saw that people's consent was sought, wherever possible, before care and support was provided. We observed that the care given was safe and appropriate and based on effective care planning and risk assessments. This meant that people's individual needs were met and preferences were taken into account.

People were protected from the risks associated with poor medication management. We saw that medicines were properly handled and administered in line with the providers policy. We noted that staff were properly supported to carry out their duties. We also found that systems were in place for people and relatives to make a complaint about the service if necessary.

We spoke with three people in the home and we were told that they were very happy in the home and that the staff were kind. One person told us “ we have nice food and games here”.

However the people that lived at Summerley had dementia and therefore not everyone was able to tell us about their experiences. To help us to understand the experiences people had we spent time observing what was going on in the home, how people spent their time, the support they received from staff and whether they had positive outcomes. This was called 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.

From our observations we found that overall people had positive experiences. The staff were seen speaking to people in a kind and respectful way. The staff responded promptly to requests for assistance and they ensured people had frequent hot and cold drinks.

We spoke to two visitors who were also very complimentary about the home. One relative told us, “I can’t fault it in any way, they are very welcoming. There are no problems whatsoever”.

We spoke with three staff and they told us that they were supported and trained to care for and support people.

We spoke with one social work professional who told us that the home offers person centred care, that they are very good at dealing with difficult behaviours and have a problem solving approach. We were told that the home has a good professional relationship with both social and health care professionals.

The people that lived at Summerley had dementia and therefore not everyone was able to tell us about their experiences. To help us to understand the experiences people had we spent time observing what was going on in the home, how people spent their time, the support they received from staff and whether they had positive outcomes.

From our observations we found that overall people had positive experiences. The staff was seen speaking to people in a kind and respectful way. The staff responded promptly to requests for assistance.

We spoke to four relatives who visited the home during our time there. All said that the home provided a good service and they had no concerns about the care and welfare of their family members.

We also gathered evidence of peoples’ experiences of the service by reviewing questionnaires that had been completed by relatives in November 2011. The result of this survey was positive.

A visiting healthcare professional told us that they had a good relationship with the service and they found the staff to be positive and supportive.

We received feedback from West Sussex Social Services following a recent visit to the home and they told us that they had no concerns about the services provided by the home.

We spoke with three staff and they told us that they were supported and trained to carry out their role.

Summerley Care Home provides care and support for up to 18 older people with a variety of long term conditions and physical health needs. It is situated in a residential area of Bognor Regis, West Sussex. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people living at the home. People had there own room and some rooms were en-suite. There was a dining and lounge area which had recently been extended and garden area that people could access.

The service had a registered manager. 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.’

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure the safe ordering, administration, storage and disposal of medicines. Medicines were managed, stored, given to people as prescribed and disposed of safely.

People were protected by staff who knew how to recognise and report the signs of abuse. Staff had received regular safeguarding training.

Safe recruitment practices were followed. Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS) had been requested and were present in all checked records. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.

People’s rights were upheld as the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been adhered to. The registered manager had made applications for all the people living at the home. We were told that these had been carried out with support from the community psychiatric nurse to ensure they accurately reflected people’s current level of need.

Staff had undertaken a comprehensive training programme to ensure that they were able to meet people’s needs. New staff received an induction to ensure they were competent to start work.

People received enough to eat and drink. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible with tasks. People who were at risk were weighed on a monthly basis and referrals or advice were sought where people were identified as being at risk.

Staff knew people well and they were treated in a dignified and respectful way. A visiting relative told us, “They’re the most caring staff I’ve ever come across and they look after each person as an individual”.

Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible. We saw that the guidance in people’s care plans reminded staff to encourage people to be as independent as possible

The care that people received was responsive to their needs. People’s care plans contained information about their life history and staff spoke with us about the importance of knowing people’s history. We were told, “They’ve all had lives, we like to find out the tiny things that make their lives”.

There were planned and meaningful activities available to people. There were scheduled external entertainers who visited and offered activities such as gardening and music classes. People enjoyed taking part in the activities and also speaking with staff and other people at the home.

Quality assurance systems were in place and were used to continuously improve the service. The registered manager had an ‘open door’ policy and staff were encouraged to discuss any concerns they had. There was an open culture at the home and staff told us they would be listened to and supported by the registered manager if they raised a concern

Relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager and felt they would be able to approach them with any concerns. One visiting relative told us “I’ve recommended this service to three other people and they have all had their parents in here”.