Springfield House Residential 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s needs were well known by staff which helped ensure a person-centred approach.

Staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s care was person-centred and in line with national standards and best practice guidance, resulting in effective support that reflected each person’s needs and preferences.

People’s care needs were recorded in their care plans. These outlined people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. However, some care plans were not up to date and did not contain specific information to direct staff. For example, in 1 care plan, staff were directed to “monitor for any changes or concerns” for a person who had a catheter. There was no information to direct staff on the possible signs and symptoms which could indicate there was a concern. There was no guidance on how to support the person in managing the catheter. We spoke with the provider who explained that due to staff vacancies, the care plans and risk assessments had not always been kept up to date.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care they received and felt supported by staff who knew them well.

Care plans contained person-specific information about what mattered to people, including their routines, preferences, and important relationships.

Staff received training relevant to the needs of people they supported. There was evidence people were supported to attend health and social care appointments and t staff coordinated with other professionals to ensure continuity across services. Information about other agencies involved in each person’s care was documented in their records, supporting effective multi-agency working.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider shared information accurately with people, their relatives and involved health professionals. Pre-admission assessments identified communication needs and care plans stated if the person wore hearing aids and/or wore glasses.

The provider had displayed the complaints policy and procedure in communal areas so people knew how to raise a complaint or concern.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Feedback was not shared with people and opportunities for learning were missed.

There had not been any recent relative or resident meetings. However, staff told us they involved people in decisions and relatives told us staff kept them updated regarding any changes. People told us if they felt able to share their ideas or raise concerns.

There was a complaints policy, and people and relatives confirmed they would be happy to raise a concern if they had one. The provider explained they had not received any formal complaints, and any informal concerns were dealt with at the time. These were not recorded as stated in the policy and therefore information was not used to develop the service or prevent further complaints or concerns from reoccurring.

People had completed a satisfaction survey with the support of staff. The survey provided a free text box for comments and quotes to be added. We reviewed the feedback and found the responses had mainly been positive. The manager told us there had been no analysis of the feedback. This meant opportunities for improving the service may have been lost. Findings of the survey had not been shared with people; there was no system for informing people of any actions taken as a result of their feedback.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There were arrangements to enable people to access services if they were unable to use these in the local community, these included a visiting podiatrist and visits from the local church. Relatives provided positive feedback about the events the service arranged. We observed the activities on offer and found they were adapted to meet people’s individual needs, ensuring everyone had the opportunity to take part if they wished.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff understood the importance of treating people fairly, regardless of cultural, health or social differences. Some people lived with dementia or short-term memory issues, and we observed staff supported them with patience and understanding.

Staff spent time with people, talking to them and their relatives. This helped staff understand people and their preferences and tailor their support accordingly.

We observed activities throughout the inspection. These sessions were inclusive and staff were kind and engaged everyone. For people unable to participate in group sessions, staff responsible for activities ensured the person was visited in their room and offered one to one sessions based on people’s likes and preferences.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

We reviewed records and found not everyone had a care plan based on their end-of-life care needs and wishes. This meant staff may not know how a person wished to be cared for at this time of their life. There was no evidence people, or their families, had been encouraged to think about their preferences for end-of-life care.

However, do not attempt resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plans for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms were in place detailing some people’s wishes and choices.