Spring Fountain (Private) Ltd

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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.

Processes were in place to ensure accidents and incidents were investigated to help identify any themes or trends which could affect people’s on-going health and safety in their home.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

The service worked with people, their families and health professionals to ensure there was continuity of care. The provider completed assessments on people who received their support. This included people who were discharged from hospital medically fit but required ongoing support.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The service had clear safeguarding systems and processes to protect people from abuse and neglect. Staff had access to safeguarding training and the service’s policies advised them on how to respond if they witnessed poor practise.

People, relatives and staff were confident if they raised concerns with management appropriate action would be taken.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Care plans were in place to manage identified risks and reflected people’s choices and individual needs. People and relatives told us they received regular staff visiting who knew them well, met their needs and managed the risks. One relative told us, “When family member was unwell, [provider] sat with them. They came back later in the day to see how they were. I am quite impressed.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Staff visited people in their own homes. When appropriate, the provider had completed environmental risk assessments to keep people and staff safe.

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.

The service had recruitment processes to make sure all staff were recruited safely and had the necessary checks before starting to work with people. However, some staff did not have their full employment history documented. There was no evidence the gaps in employment had been discussed with the provider prior to their employment. The provider spoke with staff during this assessment and recorded the reasons for their gaps in employment.

The provider had a system to monitor the duration of care calls. In general people and relatives told us staff arrived at the required times for the calls. One relative told us, “If they are going to be late, they ring.” People and their relatives told us staff always stayed for the duration of the calls and often longer if needed at times. One person told us, “They [staff] do not walk away after 5 minutes, they stay.” A second relative told us staff always asked if there is anything else they needed before leaving.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People and relatives told us staff wore PPE when required. Staff told us they had received infection prevention training and the provider ensured they had appropriate PPE for their roles.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were managed by staff who had been trained and had their competency assessed. The provider and staff we spoke with confirmed only trained staff managed medicines. Staff helped people with reordering and disposing of used medicines. The provider had oversight of medicine administration and conducted regular audits to ensure safe practice.