The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Springfield House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

3-5 Ranelagh Road, Malvern Link, Malvern, Worcestershire, WR14 1BQ (01684) 574248

Provided and run by:
Young@Heart (Springfield House) Care Home Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

6 and 13 March 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place 6 and 13 March 2015 and it was unannounced.

The home provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of eighteen people. At the time of our inspection seventeen people lived at the home with one person in hospital. People who lived at the home may have a dementia related illness.

There was a registered manager in post who was present throughout 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.

The Care Quality Commission are required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider had not followed the requirements of the MCA as it was identified that some decisions had been made without best interest discussions.

All the people we spoke with told us that they were happy and felt safe living at the home. They said that people were kind, caring and helped them pursue past times and leisure activities. The atmosphere in the home was calm and staff responded to people’s requests.

We found parts of the medicines management arrangements to be in need of improvement. Protocols were not in place to ensure people received medicines in a safe way and medicine records were not always accurate. Auditing systems were not in place which may have identified the shortfalls we found.

People told us that there was enough staff on duty to care for them and help meet their needs. Our observations during the inspection supported these comments. Safe recruitment processes were in place.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse and knew the action they would need to take.

Staff knew about people’s care needs. We saw that people and their relatives were involved in planning their care. They were provided with training and supervision to help them provide care for people.

People had a choice of food and drinks and these were available throughout the day. Healthcare needs were met by visiting health professionals. Where concerns were identified medical advice was sought in areas such as nutrition and risks of falls.

The registered manager was open to people’s comments and had addressed any concerns and complaints raised. People were confident in the manager finding them to be approachable and supportive.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

16 September 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our previous inspection on 20 May 2013, we identified that the provider did not meet expected standards in protecting vulnerable people from abuse (safeguarding) or recording and investigating complaints. Therefore we set compliance actions which required the provider to make improvements.

We reviewed how the provider had progressed and found that essential standards had been met. We spoke with the manager and two members of staff. We also looked at records that had been made and reviewed a recent questionnaire survey completed by people's relatives.

All members of staff had received safeguarding training. Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of their responsibilities in identifying and reporting abuse if they suspected it had happened in the home. They also knew how to contact external agencies if they needed to.

A new complaints procedure had been introduced. People had been told about the new procedures and how to make complaints if they needed to. Staff had also been trained in the new procedures. The provider had checked to confirm that people understood how to complain if they needed to. Complaints that had been made since we last inspected the home had been recorded and investigated.

21 May 2013

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of one registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

When we inspected 18 people were living at the home most of who had a dementia related illness. We spoke with people when we could, relatives, regular visitors to the home and staff. We spent time in communal areas observing interactions between staff and people living at the home.

During our last inspection the provider was not meeting some essential standards. We found that this was still the case in some areas.

Staff appeared to know and understand people's individual needs. People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and relatives had been involved.

Individual needs and risks had been assessed. Plans had been made to ensure their health and well being.

Visitors told us they felt that people who lived at the home were safe. However, we found that the provider was not meeting standards required to ensure people were protected from abuse.

Staff told us they felt supported by their managers. They had received training required for their role so they knew how to support people.

We found systems and audits were in place to monitor the quality of service delivered. However, the registered manager could not provide evidence to show that a complaints system was in place.

22 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We spent time carrying out observations to see how people spent their time, the support that was given to them by care workers and to see whether they had positive experiences. We found that overall people who used the service were calm and relaxed in the environment, care workers had a good understanding of their individual needs and people responded positively to interactions from them.

One person we spoke with told us that the care workers were very kind and attentive towards them but they felt the environment needed some improvements to provide a better place for people to live.

We observed staff respecting people's privacy and dignity and we saw people moved about the home making choices about where they wanted to spend their time. People's rooms appeared homely and were personalised and we could see that people had been able to bring in personal items of their choosing.

We looked at how people were supported at lunchtime. The home had a designated dining room and people were encouraged to eat there but they could eat somewhere else if they wished. During lunch we saw one person changed their mind and moved to have their lunch in the lounge.

We saw that specialist equipment was made available to people who required it to promote independence and staff provided personal support to people as necessary. We observed some positive interactions between staff and people who used the service at lunchtime and staff sat with people to eat their lunch.

When we spoke with staff they told us that picture menus were being introduced to help people to decide what they wanted to eat. We saw that photographs had been taken of some of the meals with a view to having a full menu available in the near future.

We saw a bathing schedule on display which showed which people had baths on which day and time. When we spoke with staff we were told this was only a guideline and that people could have a bath or shower whenever they wished.

People's care records were reviewed each month and people who used the service or their representatives were encouraged to contribute to this process. When we looked at copies of some of the reviews we saw that people had been able to use the opportunity to provide feedback about the service and the care provided by staff.