Springfield Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Breaches of legal regulation we found at our last inspection in relation to medicine and risk management, care plans and governance had not been addressed. The provider’s governance processes were not effective at identifying or addressing issues. Governance systems had not created an ongoing culture of learning and improvement. Staff spoke positively about the leadership of the new manager. Feedback systems were in place, though we received mixed feedback on how effective these were.

This service scored 36 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff gave us mixed feedback on the culture and direction of the service, and especially on the turnover of staff and management. One member of staff told us, “I believe the home is run by a competent management team that promotes a culture of excellence and continuous improvement.” Another said, “New members of staff that join tend to leave quite quickly. I’m unsure as to why this is. Management tends to change quickly also, meaning new procedures or way of doing things never really stick.” The provider was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes. Action plans to address those concerns had not led to improvements by the time of this latest assessment. This meant the provider had failed to put in place and sustain an effective shared culture.

The provider and manager were both aware that staff morale was variable and said they had taken steps to try and address this. These included investing in the service and trying to ensure stable staffing. However, there were continued concerns around provider oversight and governance. Action plans had not led to the required improvements which had impacted the development of an effective shared direction and culture.

Staff gave us mixed feedback on the support they received from the provider. They spoke positively about the current manager and the changes they were making at the service. However, at our last inspection we also received mixed feedback on the leadership of the service. This meant the provider had failed to put in place and sustain a positive culture at the service.

The manager was a visible presence around the service, and was known to people, relatives and staff. The provider had sent additional management support into the home following our last inspection. However, at our last inspection we also received mixed feedback on the leadership of the service. This meant the provider did not have sufficient oversight to understand the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support.

Staff said they would be confident to raise any concerns they had but gave us mixed feedback on whether they thought action would be taken. One member of staff said, “Open communication and transparency are encouraged throughout the home” but another told us they had raised concerns and, “It never was reported or recorded correctly by management.”

Safeguarding and whistleblowing policies were in place, and staff received training in this area. However, the provider had failed to put in place and sustain a culture of effective speaking up as staff did not always feel heard.

Staff said they did not always feel included in how the service was run. One member of staff said, “I can sometimes feel like I’m not listened to.”

Systems were in place to obtain feedback from staff, but staff said these did always lead to constructive action being taken. One member of staff told us, “I also feel like when you give feedback you’re in the wrong for doing so.”

Staff said there had not always been effective or consistent leadership of the service but spoke positively about the new manager. One member of staff said, “I feel like they all need a shake up and more consistent management for both staff and residents.” The provider had failed to put in place and sustain a culture of governance and leadership at the service.

The provider was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance processed. Action plans to address those concerns had not led to improvements by the time of this latest assessment. For example, people were exposed to the risk of harm because governance systems failed to maintain securely an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record of the support they needed. Records contained contradictory information on the care people needed and were not reviewed in line with the provider’s own processes. People were also exposed to the risk of harm because governance systems were not in place to effectively assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. For example, the provider’s audit processes had not identified or addressed the issues we found with medicines and risk management.

People told us they could access the local community where they wished and were able to. During our inspection we saw this taking place. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on people’s overall experience of the service.

The manager told us how staff worked in effective partnership with external professionals visiting the service, including GPs and nurses. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on people’s overall experience of the service.

External professionals did not report any concerns about the service. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on people’s overall experience of the service.

Care records contained evidence of partnership working with external professionals, including seeking and acting on advice. During our visit we saw external professionals visiting the service to review people’s health and wellbeing. However, our assessment found that medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes did not meet expected standards which impacted on people’s overall experience of the service.

We received mixed feedback from staff on how the provider supported learning, culture and innovation. One member of staff said, “They lead by example, ensuring high standards of care are consistently upheld” whilst another told us, “There is zero support from upper management.”

A range of audits were carried out by the provider, but these had not identified or addressed the continued issues we found in relation to medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes. The provider was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to medicines and risk management, care records and governance processes. Action plans to address those concerns had not led to improvements by the time of this latest assessment. This meant the provider had failed to put in place and sustain an effective shared culture.