You are here

Springfield Court Nursing Home Outstanding

We have edited an inspection report for Springfield Court Nursing Home in order to remove some text which should not have been included in this report. This has not affected the rating given to this service.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 September 2014
Date of Publication: 11 October 2014
Inspection Report published 11 October 2014 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 16 September 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

People experienced care and support, which met their needs and promoted their health, welfare and safety.

Reasons for our judgement

At the time of our visit the home was at full occupancy, with 56 people living at Springfield Court. We looked at the care records of four people, who had quite different needs. We found these to be, in general well written, providing staff with guidance about how people's individual needs were to be best met. The needs of people had been assessed before they moved into the home. This helped to ensure the staff team were confident they could provide the care and support needed by each individual. Information had been gathered from a variety of sources, so that a clear picture of assessed needs was developed.

Following admission to the home, a care plan had been drawn up based on activities of daily living and the needs identified during the pre-admission process, which included risk assessments in areas such as pressure care, falling and nutrition. The home had also completed social care profiles, which included details about people's preferences, hobbies, relationships and significant events in their lives.

The plans of care were, in general person centred documents, providing staff with guidance about people's needs and how these were to be best met. However, the provider may wish to note that vague terminology was used in some areas, examples of which were discussed with the manager at the time of our inspection. Therefore, more person centred records could be developed by the use of more specific guidance in some areas of the plans of care. However, a very good explanation of a procedure was provided in one of the care plans seen, in order to promote safe eating and drinking. We saw staff members replenishing jugs of juice or water in people's rooms during the afternoon, which was considered to be good practice.

People who moved into the home and their relatives were given the opportunity to be fully involved in the care planning process. The relatives we spoke with confirmed the plans of care were periodically discussed with them. People spoken with told us they felt safe when care and treatment was being provided.

The plans of care had been reviewed regularly and any changes in circumstances were recorded well. It was quite evident the home sought advice from a wide range of external professionals to ensure people's health care needs were being consistently met. Records showed one person had refused recommendations from the Speech and Language Therapist. This was clearly recorded and detailed explanations provided to the individual and their relative, as to the potential health problems should the recommendations not be followed, which was considered to be good practice.

We observed some residents receiving 1:1 support and we saw staff speaking with people in a respectful manner. Those who lived at the home were provided with a range of choices throughout the day. One person we spoke with told us her relative, who now lived at the home had been in several care facilities previously, but the resident and her family considered Springfield Court to be by far the best.

We found individual files to be well organised, making information easy to find. They contained a record of detailed daily events so that staff were aware of any up to date issues or concerns. Mental health assessments had been conducted and applications were made for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), as required. This helped to ensure those who lived at the home were not being restricted unnecessarily. However, the provider may find it useful if Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP's) were introduced, so the staff team would know how to evacuate each person, should the need arise.

Two activity co-ordinators were employed at the home, who were responsible for arranging a variety of entertainment for those who lived at Springfield Court. During our visit we spoke with one of these staff members, who was obviously very enthusiastic about her work and eager to ensure people were happy living at the home. She explained how activities were