You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 November 2019

Springfield House is a residential care home for up to 4 people living with a learning disability, some of whom may be older people. The home is run by a family with Margaret Blair being the provider/ manager.

The home is a farm house that has been extended and adapted to provide accommodation for up to four people living with a learning disability. The home is in a rural setting, with a large garden. The provider's family also live in the property and the lounge, kitchen and dining area are shared by people in the home and the family. People have single bedrooms. The home does not provide nursing care.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service

People in the home found it difficult to express themselves verbally but we observed them to be relaxed and comfortable in the house.

Three members of the family make up the staff team. They employed bank staff who covered when the family members are not in the home. Staff had received suitable training about protecting vulnerable adults. Good arrangements were in place to ensure that new members of staff had been suitably vetted and were the right kind of people to work with vulnerable adults.

Staff were appropriately inducted, trained and developed to give the best support possible. Team members understood people's needs very well and were experience in their roles. The staff team was suitable to meet people's needs.

People saw their GP and health specialists when necessary. Medicines were reviewed on a regular basis. Staff took the advice of nurses and consultants. The staff team had good working relationships with local GP surgeries. Nutritional planning was in place and special diets catered for appropriately.

The house was warm, clean and comfortable on the day we visited. The home had equipment in place to support care delivery.

The staff team were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

We observed kind and patient support being provided. Staff supported people in a respectful way. They made sure confidentiality, privacy and dignity were maintained.

Risk assessments and care plans provided detailed guidance. People in the service or their relatives, as appropriate, had influenced the content. The provider ensured the plans reflected the person-centred care that was being delivered.

Staff could access specialists if people needed communication tools like sign language or braille.

Every person had weekly activities planned and, for the most part, people went out together. One person attended a day centre. The home encouraged involvement in local activities. People had regular holidays in different parts of the UK.

The service had a quality monitoring system and people or their families were asked their views. Quality assurance was used to support future planning.

The provider understood how to manage concerns or complaints appropriately and there were suitable procedures in place.

Records were well organised, easy to access and stored securely.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published 3 May 2017).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned ins

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 November 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 November 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 November 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.