Springfield Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 50 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care and nutritional needs.

The kitchen used up to date information that set out people’s allergies, dietary needs and prescribed dietary needs. Staff shared people’s weekly weights with the chef so meals could be adapted accordingly if needed. People’s progresses were closely monitored.

The provider delivered effective care and treatment by following guidance to meet people’s nutrition and swallowing needs. Staff described how food was fortified to reduce the risk of undernutrition, including “homemade milk shakes, with ice cream and milk powder.”

During lunch, staff supported people to eat safely by providing food that was prepared to meet their needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed professional advice and guidance, for example around people’s nutrition hydration and their care plans reflected professional advice given.

The provider also made regular referrals to healthcare professionals when people’s needs changed. For example, referrals had been made to the speech and language therapy team when staff had identified possible choking risks.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The provider supported effective joined up working by involving relevant professionals and sharing information to manage risks. Staff told us referrals were made regularly to healthcare professionals, such as the falls team following incidents. This helped make sure people received the right support.

Appropriate information was shared between the staff teams. Handovers took place daily between staff, care staff and kitchen staff. The chef received people’s weekly weights and any updates on changes in people’s nutritional needs so these could be accommodated.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The provider supported people to live healthier lives by promoting good nutrition and supporting choice at mealtimes. Activities were used to help improve people’s wellbeing.

We observed people were offered options, and sample meals were shown to help them make a reasoned choice. People confirmed choice was available, with one person saying, “I always get a choice.” This approach contributed to a positive dining experience.

We observed people enjoying activities such as hobbies and personal interests that encouraged independence.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had effective processes in place to monitor outcomes such as peoples weight and skin. However, the records for managing people’s outcomes regarding behaviours and medicines for anxiety were not always recorded effectively. This was addressed by the manager.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met. DoLS applications had been submitted to the local authority for authorisation, in line with legal requirements. Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, appropriate best interest decisions were recorded.