You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

Spring Park provides accommodation, personal care and support for up to three adults who have a learning disability. There were four people living at the home at the time of our inspection as the provider had recently changed their statement of purpose to accommodate an additional person in the house.

There was a registered manager in place, who had taken up their post since our last inspection. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager assisted us with our inspection.

People were supported to eat safely. People who had needs related to eating and drinking had guidance in place to help ensure they received their food in the most appropriate way for them. People were supported to eat the food they wanted. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and knew people well. We observed people being supported in line with their care plans which were person-centred and detailed.

Where necessary, referrals had been made to health and social care professionals to ensure that people remained healthy. People’s well-being was the most important thing to staff and as such staff put people at the heart of the service. People were encouraged to experience a wide range of activities to suit their individual preferences.

People were cared for by staff who responded to people’s needs resulting in a positive effect on people’s wellbeing. Where people had experienced deterioration in their mobility or suffered with emotional needs there was a consistent approach from staff which resulted in people gaining confidence and independence. People were actively encouraged to be independent and were supported by staff to learn and develop new skills. Professionals spoke positively about staff and the care that people received. Staff recognised people as individual’s and developed ways of ensuring that they had the opportunity to make decisions in their care and felt listened to.

The management oversight of the home was good. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and told us that because of their approach it had created a good ethos and culture within the staff team. Relatives and advocates told us the registered manager provided good leadership for the home. The registered manager also managed another of the provider’s registered homes but demonstrated that this did not diminish their ability to manage Spring Park effectively. Records were well organised, up to date and stored confidentially where necessary.

People were safe because staff understood any risks involved in their care and took action to minimise these risks. The rota was planned to ensure there were sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff told us that people never missed out on any planned activities because they always ensured there were enough staff available. Staff understood their roles in keeping people safe and protecting them from abuse. The provider carried out appropriate pre-employment checks before staff started work.

Staff maintained a safe environment, including appropriate standards of fire safety. The provider had developed plans to ensure people would continue to receive care in the event of an emergency. People received the medicines they required and the storage and recording of medicines followed best practice. Accidents and incidents were recorded with detailed information about actions taken.

People’s care was provided by staff who had access to the training and support they needed to do their jobs. People were supported to have maximum control of their lives. Staff followed the principals of the Mental Capacity Act which meant they supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People were supported

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was safe.

There were enough staff deployed on each shift to keep people safe and meet their needs.

People were protected from avoidable harm. As risks to their health and safety had been assessed and well managed.

Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew what action to take if they had concerns about abuse.

People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures.

There were plans in place to ensure that people would continue to receive care in the event of an emergency.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and support to meet people’s needs.

People’s care was provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People’s nutritional needs were assessed. People enjoyed the food provided and could choose what they ate.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored effectively. People were supported to obtain treatment when they needed it.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was caring.

People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them.

Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity.

Staff supported people in a way that promoted their independence. People were involved in making their own decisions.

Relationships that were important to people were encouraged by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was responsive to people’s individual needs.

People’s care plans contained person-centred information about how they preferred their support to be provided.

Staff were aware of people’s individual needs and preferences and provided responsive care in a way that reflected these.

People had opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed. Staff actively encouraged people to engage with other events and people outside of the home.

There was a complaints procedure in place if anyone was unhappy with the care being provided.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 November 2017

The service was well led.

People, their relatives and staff had opportunities to contribute their views about the home.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to address any issues identified.

Records relating to people’s care were accurate, up to date and stored appropriately.