Spring Park

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 by caring staff. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity. People lived in a homely environment surrounded by their own personal belongings.

There was an appropriate complaints procedure which explained how complaints would be managed and listed agencies people could contact if they were not satisfied with the provider’s response. There had been no complaints since our last inspection.

Team meetings were used to ensure staff were providing consistent care that reflected best practice. Relatives felt communication was good and they and external agencies were asked for their views about the service provided.

The provider’s quality monitoring checks helped ensure people received safe and effective care. Staff made regular in-house checks and the provider’s area manager carried out a monthly audit. The organisation promoted a good culture within the staff team and support and recognised staff.

What people told us and what we found

We carried out an inspection at Spring Park to look at the care and treatment that people who used the service received.

As part of our inspection we spoke with four staff which included the temporary manager. We were unable to having meaningful conversations with the three people who lived in Spring Park due to their complex needs. We did however speak with one relative and a care professional.

The inspector considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

Is the service safe?

We saw that the provider had taken action following a recent incident which ensured that people who used the service were safe.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough and ensured that only staff suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed by the service.

The home had policies and procedures that related to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. Our observations showed us that staff had a good understanding of people's needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

People's preferences, interests, and diverse needs were provided in accordance with people's wishes. For example, we saw that one person liked to spend their time in the garden, whilst another preferred to watch television.

Is the service responsive?

Staff were attentive and supported people quickly when they needed assistance. We saw evidence in the care files that staff had responded to change in individuals' health needs.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that satisfaction questionnaires were sent out to relatives or other stakeholders annually. We also heard that where possible a six-monthly meeting took place between the keyworker, the person who used the service and any other individuals who were involved with the care for that person.

Regular checks were completed in the home. These included health and safety, fire and maintenance to ensure the environment that people lived in was safe and appropriately maintained.

Due to people's special communication needs it was difficult to ask people directly about their views on the home. We saw however that people who used the service were well cared for, and looked happy and relaxed.

The manager was working alone on the day of our visit and we observed that there was good interaction between the manager and the people who used the service.

We spoke with staff on the phone following our visit who were able to demonstrate a good knowledge of people's needs.

We looked at care plans and risk assessments, and found that they gave a very good account of people's needs and the action plans for staff to follow to achieve identified goals.

We looked at other records including quality assurance monitoring, staff recruitment, training and development records. Staff also confirmed on the phone some of the training they had undertaken, and some of the training planned for the coming year.