Springwood

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

Good: This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. People told us they felt able to raise safety concerns and felt listened to. One person told us, “They [staff] are nice and approachable, I’d have no problems telling them if I had any worries.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The service had effective processes to ease people’s transitions into the service, and information about people’s care and support could be shared with hospitals, to enable smooth pathways.

The provider worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Safeguarding records were clear, with appropriate investigations being carried out. One person told us, “I feel very safe here.” Another person commented, “The staff are all lovely and I couldn’t wish for better.” Staff spoken to had received up to date safeguarding training and could confidently explain how to raise and manage safety concerns.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. In the 3 care plans that we reviewed, there were gaps in the recording of people’s behaviours. We were assured staff had training on managing behaviour that challenges. However, the documentation of these events required improvement to ensure people’s behaviour could be understood and managed more effectively.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. Whilst we found no harm to people, we found hazardous items accessible to the people that lived there. A Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) cupboard and storage cupboard, which contained un-safe substances and sharp items, was left unlocked. This placed people at risk of injury and harmful ingestion. We also found razors in communal bathrooms and harmful liquids which were accessible in kitchen cupboards. Shortly after, staff and managers made these areas safe and took action to remove all hazardous items from communal areas. Due to the age of the building, we requested risk assessments in relation to asbestos management. We received a risk assessment which was not appropriate in the safety, management and controlling of asbestos. Retrospectively, the provider has taken steps to ensure asbestos risk assessments are robust and fit for purpose. We found the environment was accessible for the people that lived there. People’s equipment was well-maintained to support staff to deliver safe and effective care.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There were robust and safe recruitment practices in place to make sure that all staff, including agency staff and volunteers were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Staffing levels were observed to be safe. However, we received mixed feedback from people and relatives. One person told us, “The staff are nice, though they are a bit short at the moment.” Another person told us, “They could do with some more staff at busy times.” The provider assured us that the staffing levels were safe and they were in the process of recruiting an additional staff member to assist at night.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. All areas of the service including people’s rooms, were clean, presentable and hygienic. There was evidence of regular cleans being carried out at the service, and staff were observed using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) effectively. We did observe that there were not enough PPE stations within the service. However, leaders had recognised this prior to our assessment, and new stations were due to be implemented around the home, to further manage the risk of infection.

During the inspection we saw appropriate levels of stocked medicines, and balances checked were correct. Medication administration records (MARs) were clear, and allergies were recorded on each sheet. Where people were prescribed a variable dose, e.g. one or two tablets, the dose given was documented on the MAR chart. Ongoing balance tallies were documented after each dose. Staff told us, the relationship with the GP and pharmacy had improved significantly in recent months, and they did not have problems getting medicines when needed. People that were prescribed when required (PRN) medicines had accompanying protocols in place to ensure staff knew how and when to give these appropriately. Patch rotation charts were in place to ensure staff knew where to apply patches to the body when prescribed. However, for people that had their patches changed weekly, these were not always checked daily to ensure they were still in place on the body. It wasn’t always clear to see where creams were being applied, as staff had to manually input this information onto the electronic care notes system. No topical body maps were in place for staff to visually see where creams should be applied.