Archived: Springfield House

Updated 13 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 7 and 8 March 2016 and was unannounced. One inspector carried out this inspection. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed information we have about the service including notifications. A notification is a report about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

As part of this inspection we spoke with seven people living in the home, a representative of the provider, the registered manager and four care staff. We reviewed the care records for three people including their medicines records. We looked at the recruitment and selection records for three new members of staff and also staff training records. We checked quality assurance systems including health and safety records. We observed the care and support being provided to people and a person showed us around their home. We contacted four health and social care professionals and asked them for their feedback about this service.

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 people said they would talk to staff, the registered manager or “head office” if they had any issues. Staff confirmed they would raise any concerns with the registered manager who would take the appropriate action.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.