You are here

Archived: Springfield House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 7 March 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 24 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We observed staff asking people who used the service their permission before care was provided. We also noted in people’s care files that consent had been obtained for a variety of issues. These included medicines and the sharing of information. Where appropriate the consent forms were in an easy read format. We saw that staff obtained consent in a way that was appropriate for each individual person who used the service.

We looked at the care files for four of the people who used the service. We saw that each person had person centred care plans in place. These were up to date and had been reviewed regularly. Each person also had up to date, comprehensive and individual risk assessments in place. We observed that people were cared for by experienced and skilled staff who had been trained appropriately. Records were kept securely. The provider also had an appropriate complaints process in place. We spoke to two people who used the service. One person told us “the staff know me so well. They know if I am feeling low without me having to say anything and they are always there for me”. Another person told us “I have lots to do here, I can cook and go to college and I like my swimming”. We also saw comments from four social care professionals including. “My client was a really unhappy person, moving to Springfield House has changed their outlook on life. It’s lovely to see them so happy”. “It’s nice to know people who use the service are being cared for so well”.

Inspection carried out on 22 November 2012

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection as part of the providers planned schedule. We checked the care files for two people who used the service. We spoke to people who used the service and to staff. And we observed care being provided throughout the home and inspected other documents.

We found the atmosphere to be very homely. The staff knew each person very well and communicated with them in a very friendly but appropriate way. We saw evidence that peoples cultural needs were looked after and that dignity was maintained for all people using the service. Each person had the choice of what to do and staff were there to support people whenever they needed it. During our inspection, we did not find anything that gave us cause for concern.

We spoke to two people who used the service. One person told us "I like it here, there are lots of things to do, but I like to stay in. There is nothing I don't like because I get to choose what I want to do". Another person told us "The staff are really supportive and helpful, they are there for me when I am low and help me maintain my independence".

Inspection carried out on 25 July 2011

During a routine inspection

One person told us that it was “really nice living here.” She said that she had just returned form her second holiday this year, both of which she said were “brilliant”. She confirmed that she often goes shopping, and that she had just been out to lunch. She said that the staff were really good, really nice. She said that she trusted the staff and that if she had any concerns she would talk to them. When we asked about her involvement in creating her care plan, she said that she thought she was asked about it but she couldn’t remember. She said the food is her choice and that she is able to buy food that she likes from the shop down the road. She said she really enjoys going out by herself.

We spoke to a second person about her care. She very much led her own care planning process and was clear about what to do if she was unhappy about her care. She told us that she is currently planning some further activities outside the home with the assistance of staff and that she meets regularly with her key worker to deal with issues about her care as they arise. She also said that she felt safe at Springfield House. When asked if there was anything further she would like to do, or any issue that she wanted to raise, she said “no. I’m good”.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)