You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 February 2019

The inspection took place on 11 December 2018 and was unannounced.

At our last inspection in October 2017 the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. At that inspection we identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This breach was in relation to the safe management of medicines. We also had concerns about the management and governance of the service. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions safe and well-led to at least good.

At this inspection we found that the registered provider had addressed all these issues. At this inspection the service was rated ‘Good’.

Spring Lane is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 63 older people, some of whom are living with dementia.

People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of our inspection there were 50 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People using the service were relaxed with staff and the way staff interacted with people had a positive effect on their well-being.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and knew how to raise any concerns with the appropriate safeguarding authorities.

Risks to people’s safety had been identified and the management had thought about and recorded ways to mitigate these risks.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in the premises.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were administered to people safely and appropriately.

There were enough staff on duty to support people safely.

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.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and knew that they must offer as much choice to people as possible in making day to day decisions about their care.

People were included in making choices about what they wanted to eat and staff understood and followed people’s nutritional plans in respect of any cultural requirements or specific healthcare needs people had.

Both people who used the service and the staff who supported them had regular opportunities to comment on service provision and made suggestions regarding quality improvements.

People had regular access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

Staff treated people as unique individuals who had different likes, dislikes, needs and preferences. Staff and management made sure no one was disadvantaged because of their age, gender, sexual orientation, disability or culture. Staff understood the importance of upholding and respecting people’s diversity. Staff challenged discriminatory practice.

Everyone had an individual plan of care which was reviewed on a regular basis.

People were supported to raise any concerns or complaints and staff understood the different ways people expressed their views about the service and if they were happy with their care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 February 2019

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and knew how to raise any concerns with the appropriate safeguarding authorities.

Risks to people�s safety had been identified and the management had thought about and recorded ways to mitigate these risks.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in the premises.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were administered to people safely and appropriately.

There were enough staff on duty to support people safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 February 2019

The service was effective. Staff had the knowledge and skills necessary to support people properly and safely.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and knew that they must offer as much choice to people as possible in making day to day decisions about their care.

People had a choice of meals at the home and staff knew about any special diets people required.

People had access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 February 2019

The service was caring. We observed staff treating people with respect, kindness and dignity.

Staff knew about the various types of discrimination and its negative effect on people�s well-being.

Staff understood people�s likes, dislikes, needs and preferences and people were involved in their care provision where they wanted to be.

Staff respected people�s privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 February 2019

People�s care was individualised and the management and staff reviewed people�s needs and made changes to people�s care provision when required.

Staff knew how to communicate with people, listened to them and acted on their suggestions and wishes.

Activities provided by the home and outside of the home met people�s social and spiritual needs.

People were supported to raise any concerns they had with any of the staff and management of the home.

Staff were following the relevant policies and procedures and understood this important aspect of end of life care to ensure people had a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 February 2019

The service was well-led. Staff understood the service�s vision, values and strategic goals. The management had the experience, capacity and capability to ensure that these strategies were delivered.

Systems were in place to identify and manage risks to the quality of the service. This information was being used to drive improvement within the service.

Both people who used the service and the staff who supported them had regular opportunities to comment on service provision and made suggestions regarding quality improvements.