Springfield Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Breaches of legal regulation were found at our last inspection in relation to care records had not been addressed. Care plans were not consistently reviewed to ensure they reflected people’s current choices and needs. Feedback was sought, and policies were in place to respond to complaints. Information was made accessible for people. Systems were in place to discuss people’s plans for the future.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People spoke positively about the support they received, and said staff were caring and kind. One person told us, “The staff are friendly.” However, people’s experience was impacted by care plans which did not fully reflect their choices and needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s support choices and needs, and clearly knew the people they cared for well. However, shortfalls in care records impacted the provision of person-centred care.

We saw people receiving caring and kind support throughout our visit. This included staff seeking and respecting people’s choices on what they wanted to do. However, this was not reflected in people’s care records.

People told us they were seen by a range of external professionals at the service. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on the care people received.

Staff were able to describe the wide range of external professionals they worked with, and how they were able to seek advice should this be needed. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on the care people received.

External professionals did not raise any concerns with how the service was integrated into people’s wider care provision. One external professional told us, “The staff who report to me generally seem to look after things well.” However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on the care people received.

People were supported to see external professionals where needed, and this was documented in their care plans. Some visited the service regularly to carry out general checks on people’s health and wellbeing. However, there were continued shortfalls in how the provider maintained oversight of care so it was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People did not comment specifically on how they were provided with information, but did not raise any concerns about this.

We saw that staff were knowledgeable about how to communicate with people effectively. For example, where people had difficulties with hearing we saw staff ensuring they were close enough to be seen and then speaking slowly and clearly.

People’s communication preferences and needs were assessed and recorded, to ensure they could be given information in the most accessible way possible.

People did not raise any concerns about being listened to, and said they felt involved. One person said, “The staff are lovely, if you want something they will get it.” However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on the overall support people received.

Staff told us they enjoyed speaking with and learning about the people they supported. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on the overall support people received.

Systems were in place for people to give feedback, or raise complaints, about their care. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on the overall support people received.

People did not raise any concerns about accessing care and support. This included people confirming that staff arranged appointments with external professionals when needed. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards. This meant people had not always been able to access effective support.

Staff did give any specific feedback on equity in access, but were knowledgeable about people’s support needs and how to meet these. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards. This meant people had not always been able to access effective support.

External professionals said staff were responsive to any changes in people’s support needs and acted on these. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards. This meant people had not always been able to access effective support.

Care plans contained evidence of people accessing the care and support they needed. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on the overall support people received.

People told us they received the help and support they chose and wanted. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on the overall support people received.

Staff knew the people they supported well, including their personal preferences and personalities. This knowledge was used to help people achieve equal experiences and outcomes. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on the overall support people received.

Staff received training in equality, diversity and inclusion to help ensure people received equity in experiences and outcomes. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on the overall support people received.

People did not comment specifically on their experience of planning for the future, but records showed these discussions took place.

Staff did not comment specifically on how people were supported to plan for the future, but records showed these discussions took place.

Care plans documented people’s plans for the future, including at the end of their life. Where appropriate relatives were also recorded as being involved in these discussions.