Springfield Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 47 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learned to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had an improving learning culture where safety concerns were identified and acted on. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and lessons learned were recorded.
Staff understood how to raise concerns and described confidence in reporting safeguarding issues. Comments included, “Yes, I feel confident raising safeguarding concerns. I understand the procedures and trust that any concerns will be handled appropriately.”

Where safety issues were identified, the provider demonstrated they had taken action. For example, ordering signage and fitting cupboard latches following feedback from their recent fire risk assessment.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider had systems to support safe care delivery and continuity. The service maintained key safety systems, including fire safety arrangements with an action plan in place and recorded fire checks.

People had appropriate assessments in place to support a safe admission to the service. We could see from accidents and incidents records that referrals were made to appropriate healthcare services for support when needed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider promoted safeguarding awareness with staff described confidence in raising concerns. Staff had received safeguarding training and stated they understood safeguarding procedures and trusted concerns would be managed appropriately.

People generally reported feeling safe, which supports a safeguarding culture within the home. One person said, “I’ve been here a long time and feel very safe, and I’d soon tell them if I wasn’t happy with things.” However, some feedback highlighted risks from people entering peoples’ rooms and concerns about missing belongings. The provider was aware of these concerns and was already addressing this. This needed to continue through safeguarding and risk management arrangements.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider made improvements by involving people in day-to-day risk management. A recently formed residents’ committee was in place, a forum for people to raise issues and contribute to decisions.

Personalised risk assessments were in place for people within their individual care plans to manage and mitigate risks to themselves and other people. These included supporting people with positive risk taking to maintaining personal choice.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The environment was mostly maintained with safety checks, and where hazards were identified the provider took action. Recorded systems were in place for a range of safety maintenance checks for example, checks of fire systems, emergency lighting and window restrictors.

Inspectors found some environmental risks, including emergency call cords that were tied up and window restrictors that required tamper-proof improvements in parts of the building to reduce risks to people. These were actioned immediately during the inspection.

The provider had a refurbishment plan in place which included redecoration, and work had been completed in some areas since our last inspection. Further work was planned to continue making changes and improvements. One person told us, “The home is clean and tidy, but the decoration needs updating.”

The provider did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development.

Staff told us they felt supported but records in this area required further improvements. The provider’s supervision policy stated staff were required to have 4 individual supervisions per year plus group supervision and an appraisal. Records indicated some staff had not yet received supervision this year. Staff training records and management audits showed that there were gaps in some mandatory training. The manager was already working on improvements in this area, with additional training being organised.

The provider had safe recruitment process in place. Recruitment records showed all appropriate pre-employment checks had been completed., and the provider identified staff files required photos and took action.

Staff described stable staffing and a positive team culture. One member of staff told us, “Never felt more at home here - worked at the company for 7 years and I like this place, the staff are lovely.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had infection prevention control measures in place. Hand hygiene supplies were available, and the home followed good practice arrangements for the management of the laundry to avoid cross-contamination.

However, fixtures including light pull cords in bathrooms and toilets were not easily cleaned and PPE stores had missing gloves, which needed improvement and action was planned to address this immediately.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

Records of regular medicines generally followed national guidance and a system existed for time-sensitive medicines. Overall, medicines processes had improved, and a new process introduced for creams was working well.

People’s “when required” (PRN) medicines protocols were in place but needed to be more person-centred and include clearer directions, with records showing why PRN was given and whether it was effective.

Information on how people took medicines was not always up to date, and covert administration for 2 people required updating which the manager amended immediately during this inspection. The manager confirmed following our inspection an upgrade to the care planning system was also being introduced to avoid these issues in the future.

Medicine storage had improved. Medicines were now stored more securely in a new treatment room that included controlled drugs. Appropriate policies were in place, and time sensitive medicines were administered at the correct times.