Archived: Springdene

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

There were twenty-one people living at the home at the time of the inspection. We met with twelve residents and three people visiting the home.

Is the service safe?

People told us that they felt safe within the home, with support from competent staff. They told us 'They provide enough information,' and 'The environment is fine.' It was a hot day on the day of our visit, and we saw staff offering people drinks on a regular basis throughout the day.

The GP visited the service at least once weekly, and people were confident that they could always be seen if needed. People received their medicines safely, and received appropriate support to treat or prevent pressure sores. Staff undertook relevant training to ensure that they worked safely and in line with best practice.

Is the service effective?

People told us that staff were competent at meeting their individual needs effectively. They told us 'The food is very nice,' 'The food is super ' I'm very happy,' 'You get reasonable care and support,' 'She's getting the support needed,' and 'I get my medicines on time.'

People were supported to undertake some leisure activities within the home and had the opportunity to go on trips out of the home on an occasional basis. People were generally satisfied with the food provided, laundry service, and the home environment.

Is the service caring?

People were satisfied with the way they were cared for at the home. They told us 'I am sorry to leave,' and 'The carers seem very nice ' they are very sweet.' Visitors told us that they felt welcome at the home.

We observed staff engaging people in conversation as they supported them. They were respectful, and helpful and maintained people's privacy and dignity as appropriate.

Is the service responsive?

People living at the home told us 'Everyone's looked after me very well,' 'I get physiotherapy twice a day,' 'The physiotherapy is excellent,' and 'They are responsive.' Visitors were satisfied with the support provided to their relatives noting 'They keep pushing fluids,' and 'Staff have a good understanding of working with people who have dementia.'

We saw that staff had identified people's cultural and religious needs, and taken steps to address these, for example holding a weekly Friday night service for Jewish residents.

However we noted that records were not always maintained up to date, and found some discrepancies in records of controlled drugs, risk assessments, and care documentation that might place people at risk of not having their changing needs addressed promptly. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to protecting people from the risk of unsafe or inappropriate care due to inaccurate records.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff we spoke with showed that they understood the needs of individual people they cared for. People living at the home told us 'It's been very nice,' 'It's clean enough,' 'Communication is fine,' 'Everything's alright,' and 'I was very happy here ' everything was great.'

We saw that appropriate quality assurance systems were in place to ensure that the home's standards were maintained.

We spoke with people who use the service and relatives. They told us they were happy with the care provided. For example, a relative told us that the care provided was 'really, really good' and said, 'the carers really engage with people, they are excellent.' We saw staff interacting with people in a caring and sensitive way and responding to their needs. Staff sat next to people while they were helping them to eat. We saw that they gave people time to eat at their own pace without being rushed.

Staff received appropriate training to enable them to provide the care and support that people needed. They demonstrated the knowledge and skills needed to protect people from possible abuse. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received and ensure care was provided in a safe environment.

We found there were enough staff available at night to meet people's needs. However, we found that accurate records in respect of each person who used the service were not always kept. Records of the repositioning of people assessed as being at risk of pressure sores were not always accurate. As a result the provider could not be assured that people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care in respect of their skin integrity.