- Care home
Springfield House
Assessment report published 11 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 25 February to 11 March 2026.
Springfield House is a small residential care home for up to four people with learning disabilities and autistic people. At the time of the inspection, four people were living at the service.
The service operates from the ground floor of a remote farmhouse, while members of the family who run the service live on the first floor. Three members of the same family make up the main staff team, supported by a small number of bank staff. Another family member runs the on‑site farm, and people living at the service have regular contact with the animals. The service also has access to a minibus, which is used to support people to travel and take part in activities in the community.
During this announced assessment, we assessed the quality statements under all key questions; safe, caring, effective, responsive and well-led.
We undertook this responsive assessment to follow up concerns we had received in relation to governance, consent and recruitment records.
At this assessment, the service was in breach of 4 legal regulations in relation to consent, safe care and treatment, person centred care and good governance.
Risks to people were not always assessed, monitored or managed effectively. Environmental safety checks were not always completed, and some areas of the home required urgent improvement, including fire safety arrangements. Recruitment processes were not robust, and staffing information such as rotas, employment documents and supervision arrangements were not consistently in place. Governance systems were not strong enough to identify and address shortfalls, and leaders had limited oversight of risk and quality. Care planning, capacity assessments and best interest decision making were inconsistent, which meant the provider could not always demonstrate people’s rights and preferences had been fully considered.
Care and support were not always personalised. People did not have individual activity plans, goals or aspirations documented, and opportunities to build independence or develop skills were not consistently explored. People also did not always have reliable ways to alert staff at night, which created a potential risk of delayed support.
However, we observed people receiving warm, caring and respectful interactions from staff. The atmosphere in the home was calm and friendly, and people told us they felt safe and happy living there. Medicines were generally well managed, and the provider acted quickly when issues were identified. The environment was clean and staff worked well with external health and social care professionals to support people’s needs. The provider had also recently engaged with the local authority quality team and had begun making improvements to governance processes and documentation.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
People's experience of this service
People’s feedback showed that care and support partially reflected the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. Feedback from people, relatives and professionals was consistently positive and indicated that people felt safe, well cared for and valued. Staff had developed trusting and respectful relationships with people and demonstrated a good understanding of their individual needs. However, observations during the inspection identified missed opportunities to further promote people’s choice and independence in everyday activity and decision‑making. The service was geographically isolated, which limited people’s spontaneous access to the local community. As a result, people were largely dependent on the provider’s transport arrangements to go out, which reduced flexibility and choice. In addition, the provider was unable to demonstrate a clear understanding of the inherent risks associated with closed cultures, particularly in more isolated settings. There was limited evidence that proactive measures were in place to mitigate these risks, such as strengthening external engagement, encouraging regular community connections, or embedding robust planning to ensure people were supported to live open, inclusive lives. Not everyone using the service used words as their main form of communication. However, people who were able to share their views spoke warmly about their experiences, and relatives and professionals provided positive feedback. We observed kind and caring interactions during the assessment. Relatives described the standard of care in a positive way. One family member told us, “We feel so blessed and [person] is so well cared for. The standard of care is phenomenal.” Another said, “They're brilliant… I could not fault them at all,” and explained they felt comfortable raising concerns and were kept informed about their relative’s wellbeing. Professionals consistently reported that staff knew people well. One professional described the home as “very homely,” adding, “If you were new there, you might think, this is a very different care home, but they go above and beyond. Nobody has a bad word to say about them in our team.” Another told us, “[Registered manager] is always very open… I’ve never had any concerns. [People using the service] always have everything they need.” People told us they enjoyed daily routines, activities and spending time with staff. One person said, “I have an iPad which I use more and more… the staff are brilliant.” Families also spoke positively about shared experiences, including annual holidays, with one relative saying, “They all love their holiday to Blackpool every year. They talk about it all year.” While people we spoke with expressed they were happy with their care, our assessment found some elements of care did not meet the expected standards.