You are here

Archived: Springfield House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 April 2016

This inspection took place on 7 March 2016 and was unannounced. Springfield House provides care for up to seven people with a learning disability and mental health needs. Orchard End Limited, the provider, is part of Choice Care Group. People and staff at Springfield House have access to management support and resources from Choice Care.

Seven people were living in the home at the time of our inspection. People had their own rooms, some with en suite facilities and shared a living room, dining room and kitchen. The house was detached and set in its own grounds.

There was a registered manager in post, although they had been absent for over 28 days. An acting manager had been appointed in their absence. 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 were not always being safeguarded from the possibility of abuse or harm. Safeguarding policies and procedures had not been followed after concerns were raised which meant the appropriate action was not taken immediately. Recruitment and selection procedures were not rubust. Staff had been appointed without checking why they had left former employment in adult social care.

People’s needs had been assessed and they were involved in developing their care and support. They were integral in deciding how they would like to be supported and making choices about their day to day lives. Their care records reflected their past history, personal preferences and routines important to them. People were encouraged to be independent and talked through their goals and wishes for the future. Staff supported them to achieve this through taking small steps and developing their confidence. Any risks people faced had been assessed and hazards had been minimised, promoting positive risk taking. As a result people had successfully tryed new things such as going on holiday for the first time or getting back in touch with family. People had access to a wide range of activities both at home and in their local community including volunteering and training opportunities and meeting friends socially. People’s diverse needs were considered and staff understood how to promote their human rights with respect to age, disability, culture and religious beliefs.

People’s health and well-being was promoted. People were supported to stay well, to eat a healthy diet and to have their medicines administered safely. They had access to a range of health care professionals to help them maintain their physical and mental health. Staff understood people really well and knew how to support them when they felt anxious or upset. People were reassured and helped to manage their emotions. Any restrictions in place had been discussed and agreed with people to keep them safe. People deprived of their liberty had the appropriate authorisations in place.

People were supported by staff who had access to a robust training programme to equip them with the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff felt supported in their roles and were positive about the opportunities for development. Staff were positive about their relationship with the registered manager, who was open, accessible and “hands on”. They understood people’s needs really well, treating people with respect, sensitivity and kindness.

Quality assurance systems ensured feedback was obtained from people, their relatives and staff. Their views were considered and action plans identified improvements made as a result. A person told us, “It’s really good here, I get all the help and support I need”. People had the opportunity to audit other services owned by the provider and to send a representative from their home to meetings with the provider. Complaints systems were in place and pe

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 13 April 2016

The service was not always safe. People were put at risk because safeguarding policies and procedures had not been consistently followed.

All of the recruitment and selection checks required for new staff had not been completed. This potentially put people at risk of receiving unsafe care and support.

People were supported by enough staff reflecting their changing needs. People were supported to live full lives and to take risks as safely as possible. People’s medicines were safely managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 April 2016

The service was effective. People were supported by knowledgeable and skilled staff who understood their needs well. People also had access to training.

People’s consent to their care and support was considered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Deprivation of liberty safeguards were sought when needed.

People were supported to stay healthy and well; their dietary needs were considered and they had access to health care professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 April 2016

The service was very caring. People were treated with sensitivity, kindness and respect. Care was taken to make sure their diverse needs were met.

People were listened to and their views shaped the care and support they received. People’s privacy and dignity was respected. They were encouraged to be independent and to make contact with people important to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 April 2016

The service was responsive. People’s care was individualised, reflecting their personal preferences, wishes and routines important to them. Their independence was encouraged and promoted.

People led full and busy lifestyles, taking part in activities they enjoyed and having the opportunity to try new experiences.

People were confident talking to staff about any concerns or issues they had and knew they would be listened and responded to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 April 2016

The service was well-led. People were confident expressing their views and opinions whether individually face to face, in meetings or in response to surveys. The provider and registered manager encouraged people to feedback their experience of the service.

People and staff felt supported by the registered manager who was open and accessible.

A range of internal and external quality assurance audits monitored the quality of service provided. Action, if needed, was made to make improvements.