Springfield 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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Most people and relatives spoke positively about the staff describing them as kind and caring. Comments included, “The staff are amazing, fantastic, very kind and very caring, can’t fault at all”, “The staff are really kind and understanding” and “Staff are friendly and kind, they are happy to assist and always asking if we need anything.” People and relatives also described there being a good atmosphere in the home and many commented on the family friendly feel.

We observed some positive and caring interactions between staff and people. People’s privacy was respected, and we saw staff knocking on people’s doors before entering. However, from our observations, review of records and the feedback we received from people, relatives and professionals we could not be assured people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion, or their dignity was respected. For example, some staff told us about people being ignored, we observed staff appeared disengaged and despondent, and people told us about delays in care which impacted on their dignity.

The provider did not consistently ensure that people were treated as individuals or that care, support, and treatment reflected their personal needs, preferences, and values. Staff did not always consider people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, or other protected characteristics.

Not all staff were able to demonstrate they knew people well, this included some staff who had worked at the service for longer periods. For example, when we asked staff about people, including their needs, likes, dislikes and abilities, staff could not consistently describe these.

We asked 1 staff member about a person who had been in the home for a number of months what the person enjoyed doing and how this person liked to receive care and they replied, ‘I’m not really sure.” We also asked a staff member if anyone had any specific dietary requirements and were told, “I don’t think so,” yet from our review of care records we had identified, people who had a diagnosis of diabetes, people with intolerance of certain foods and people who required specific food modifications.

That said, people and relatives told us they or their loved one was treated as individuals, and care was provided in line with their needs and wishes.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care plans contained some information about the level of support people required and what they could do for themselves.

People and their relatives told us, people were supported to be independent and given opportunities to do things for themselves. A person told us, “I do everything myself.” A relative said, “[Person] says to the staff they want to wash themself, staff let them.” We observed staff supporting people to maintain their independence, by offering encouragement to do things, ensuring they had equipment available to them, such as walking frames and by cutting up food where required to help ensure they could eat independently.

People confirmed they were offered choice about their care including, when they wanted to get up or go to bed, what they ate or how they spent their time. A person told us, “I often would hear carers in the corridor asking people if they want to go to bed, people are never made to go to bed if they don’t want to.”

Consideration had been given to the provision of activities including, physical activities such as exercises as well as activities to promote positive emotional and psychological wellbeing. People and relatives spoke positively about the activities. A relative told us, “The entertainment people are amazing, they get people from their rooms to join in, there is entertainment every day – 7 days a week.” Another relative said, “Emotionally he is so much better.” During the assessment visits we observed people engaging in multiple activities, which was enjoyed.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or always act to minimise discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed people’s call bells were not always responded to in a timely way. We heard the management team request staff answer call bells, which had been ringing “for a while” via communication devices on multiple occasions throughout our visit. This meant people could potentially be left in discomfort or distress or in situations which effected their dignity.

We were not assured all staff had the skills and ability to recognise when action was needed to address pain or other presenting health needs. Nearly all feedback from healthcare professionals raised concerns about timely and effective responses to people’s needs. A healthcare professional told us, “I have noted that on a few occasions, requests I have made have been lost in translation over a period of days (i.e. fluid charts not being filled out etc.).” Another healthcare professional said, “There have been episodes of patients becoming medically unwell as staff are not escalating concerns in a timely way.” On review of care records, we found 2 occasions in the last 2 months where potential serious health conditions were not escalated promptly to ensure optimum health and wellbeing for people. This placed people at significant risk of harm. This was being investigated by the senior management team.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff were positive about the manager and told us their views, opinions and suggestions would be listened to. A staff member said, “[Name of manager] is really approachable, I would be very comfortable if I have to raise any issues or concerns with them.”

The management team understood the need to make reasonable adjustments for staff who may have social, religious or culture needs to fulfil and individually tailored support for staff could be offered if specific situations arose.

Staff emotional wellbeing had been considered and staff had access to an employee assistance program, where they could get advice or support 24-hours a day. Staff confirmed if incidents occur, which could cause distress debriefing sessions were implemented to allow staff to discuss it.