Archived: Springfield House Care Home

Springfield House Care Home accommodates up to 50 people with residential care needs in a purpose-built building. 33 people were using the service at the time of the inspection.

We found the following examples of good practice:

• Appropriate measures were in place at the entrance and in the home to reduce the risk of infection. Social distancing rules were being complied with. Some minor changes had been made to the layout of furniture to encourage and support social distancing.

• The provider was following national guidance for anyone moving into the home and admissions were carried out safely.

• Staff supported people’s social and emotional wellbeing. People were supported to keep in touch with their family members via video or telephone calls. The provider and staff communicated regularly with family members about the latest guidance and to update on their relative’s health.

• The provider and registered manager ensured staff received appropriate guidance and support. Staff had undertaken additional training in infection prevention and control and regular audits were carried out.

• Staffing levels had been maintained and supplemented with agency staff. Agency staff were appropriately trained and only worked at this service.

Further details can be found in the key question below.

People’s experience of using this service: People told us they received a good service and felt safe. Accidents and incidents were recorded, and risk assessments were in place. The registered manager understood their responsibilities about safeguarding and staff had been appropriately trained. Arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines.

There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure, and carried out relevant vetting checks when they employed staff. Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people were aware of how to make a complaint. An effective quality assurance process was in place. People and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (published October 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection. It was scheduled based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

This inspection took place on 19 May 2016 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we would be visiting. A second day of the inspection took place on 24 May 2016 and was announced. We last inspected the service in May 2014 and found the provider was meeting the regulations we inspected against at that time.

The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 home had a friendly relaxed atmosphere; we observed people living at the home were happy and comfortable in the company of all staff.

People and relatives were complimentary about the care and support provided. A health care professional told us, “Staff genuinely care for people, its lovely.”

Staff had a clear understanding of how to safeguard people and were able to describe the signs of potential abuse, and the actions they would take if they had concerns about a person’s safety or treatment.

The provider had an effective recruitment procedure in place. Appropriate checks were conducted prior to new staff commencing work.

People and relatives told us there were enough appropriately skilled staff available. The registered manager reviewed staffing levels to ensure people’s needs were met.

The provider had a thorough business continuity plan in place to ensure people would continue to receive care following an emergency.

Where risks were identified they were assessed and managed to minimise the risk to people who used the service and others.

Medicines records we viewed were complete and up to date. This included records for the receipt, return and administration of medicines.

The provider had a programme for the maintenance of the premises to ensure the interior remained at a high standard of appearance. The premises had been adapted to support those living with dementia.

People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks to help ensure that their nutritional needs were met.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and support and staff obtained their consent before support was delivered. Where people had no family or personal representative we saw the service assisted people to obtain support from an advocacy service.

Relatives and people told us staff were kind, thoughtful and caring. We observed many positive interactions between staff and people living at the home.

The provider had an extensive activities programme which was built around people’s interests. The home had researched stimulating activities for those living with dementia. People were supported to maintain links to their local community.

The home had developed good working relationships with external health care professionals visiting the service. We saw evidence in care plans of co-operation between care staff and healthcare professionals including, occupational therapists, nurses and GPs.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff had a sound knowledge of the people they supported, and their likes and dislikes.

Care plans reflected people’s individual needs. People, relatives and health care professionals were involved in regular reviews.

The provider had clear visions and values, placing people at the centre. The registered manager and care manager researched a number of initiatives to improve the quality of people's care.

Feedback was sought from people, relatives and staff in order to monitor and improve standards.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives and the staff supporting them, and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

During our visit to Springfield House, we checked the premises and found it provided a safe and suitable environment. Before anyone received care from the service they were visited in their own home and their needs were assessed, which meant the staff knew how to care for the people living at Springfield House.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Whilst no applications had been submitted, relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and further training was planned. We also saw that all staff had received safeguarding training and relevant recruitment checks had taken place before staff began working at Springfield House.

Is the service effective?

Each person had an individual care plan which set out their specific care needs and people had been involved in the assessment and planning of their care. Relatives we spoke with told us they were also involved in the planning of care.

We saw that support plans and risk assessments were up to date and reflected people's individual needs and we observed staff supporting people in a caring and sensitive way.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff and we saw that care records were accurate and up to date.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care provided at Springfield House. A relative told us, 'She loves it here, she doesn't want to come home now.'

Is the service responsive?

People were asked for their views on a regular basis. A relative told us 'You just have to ask and they will sort it out for you.' Records showed that people's needs had been taken into account and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

People and their relatives told us they had never made a complaint but knew how to if they were unhappy about anything.

Is the service well-led?

The provider gathered information about the safety and quality of their service from a variety of sources. The manager held regular team meetings with staff and asked people and their relatives their opinions on how the service was run.

Regular checks of the premises took place to ensure it was safe and suitable for the people who lived there.

People who we were able to speak with told us they were happy with the quality of their care, and told us they felt relaxed and content in the home.

One person said 'I like living here and the staff never come into my room without asking me'. Other people we spoke with said they liked the care staff particularly the manager and deputy manager.

The home had systems in place to regularly check the quality of the care and other services such as the environment, catering, and fire safety. Actions had been taken where issues had been identified. Staff had been fully supported in meeting people's needs because they received regular supervision sessions and training was up to date.

The premises were clean and at a comfortable temperature. Staff we spoke with were courteous and engaged in activities with residents throughout the day. When people pressed call buttons requesting assistance the call was answered promptly by staff on duty. People we spoke with told us "they always come if I need them".