Springfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. People’s dignity was not always fully supported by the design of the environment.

One person’s bedroom was accessed by passing through another person’s bedroom and shared wet room. This arrangement had the potential to impact people’s privacy and dignity, particularly during times when personal care was being provided or when individuals needed private space. It also meant people could be disturbed unintentionally, which may not always align with their wishes and preferences.

Staff understood people’s life stories, preferences and what mattered to them, which helped them build trusting and respectful relationships. However, this personal knowledge was not always fully captured in people’s care plans. This meant important background information was not consistently recorded for all staff to access. While people were generally supported by a small staff team who knew them well, if unfamiliar staff were required to provide care, they would not always have access to comprehensive information to support people’s individual needs.

However, staff consistently treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. There was a warm and welcoming atmosphere in the home, and we observed positive, caring interactions throughout our visit. People told us staff were “kind, compassionate and caring,” and feedback from relatives and professionals supported this. One relative told us, “They are so kind, compassionate and caring, you couldn’t wish for a more caring group of people.”

People’s dignity was promoted through staff’s approach to care. Staff were attentive and considerate in how they supported people, and they treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Care records were stored securely and in line with data protection requirements, which helped ensure people’s personal information was kept safe.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or ensure their care, support and treatment fully reflected their needs, preferences and aspirations. People’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, and protected characteristics were not consistently explored, reviewed or embedded in day-to-day support or activity planning.

People were supported in line with some personal preferences such as choices about bedroom décor and meal options. People and relatives told us they valued the rural, farm‑based setting and described this as a calm and familiar lifestyle. However, there was limited evidence that they routinely accessed individualised community-based activities that reflected their individual interests, goals or aspirations. Most activities offered were group‑based, with people usually going out together on the provider’s minibus.

The provider told us that one person attended a local bingo session once a month, but they were unable to provide evidence of other people being supported to take part in community activities based on their individual choices. There was no clear record of regular consultation with people about what they might like to do, learn or achieve in their lives, or whether their wishes and aspirations had changed over time. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that people were being actively supported to understand, explore or pursue meaningful alternatives, in line with the principles of Right support, right care, right culture.

One relative told us, “The most positive outcome is that [person] is happy. [They’re] content and feel safe… We thought [person] would go out more, but [person] doesn’t always want to. [Person] may not go out even if [they] were given the option to.” While this demonstrated that people felt safe, settled and cared for, we were not assured that people were routinely offered opportunities to revisit their choices, experience new activities or develop independence where possible. This limited the provider’s ability to demonstrate that people were being supported to make informed and evolving decisions about their lives.

However, staff were caring and knew people well. Care plans included guidance about cultural or spiritual practices, which helped staff support people respectfully and in line with their values. People were supported by familiar staff who understood their routines and day‑to‑day preferences, which contributed to their sense of stability and wellbeing.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence or ensure they knew their rights and had choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing.

People had not been consulted about their needs or wishes relating to sexuality and relationships, and there were no care plans to guide staff in providing safe, respectful support in this area. There was no evidence that people were supported or encouraged to meet new people or develop friendships outside of those they lived with or were already familiar with. This limited people’s opportunities to build and maintain relationships of their choosing and to exercise choice and control over this aspect of their lives. As a result, the provider could not demonstrate that people’s rights or preferences were being fully understood or promoted.

People did not always have the means to lock their bedroom doors, which limited their privacy and control over their personal space. While this may not have been appropriate for everyone, there was no evidence that people (or relatives, where relevant) had been consulted about this or involved in decisions about their rights to privacy and autonomy. However, one person told us, “I love my room, I can get time to myself.”

When we asked people about opportunities to build their independence, we heard mixed experiences. One person told us, “I fancy trying to see what I can do and what I can’t do.” This indicated a willingness to explore new opportunities, although there was limited evidence of structured planning or support to help people identify and work towards individual goals.

Another person told us they had been supported to manage their own money and said, “I can manage my money now. I keep my spending money in my bag, if I need help [registered manager] helps me.” This showed some individual progress and appropriate support around financial independence. However, this was not consistently reflected across other areas of people’s lives, including how activities and daily opportunities were planned and reviewed to ensure they reflected people’s personal choices and aspirations.

The provider did not always fully understand people’s needs, views and wishes. This meant people were not consistently supported to get help when they needed it.

People using the service lived on the ground floor, while staff slept upstairs at night. Because of this arrangement, it was unclear how people could alert staff if they needed assistance overnight. One person had monitoring equipment in place to support their safety. Another person told us they used their mobile phone to contact staff if needed. However, there was no evidence that all people had an agreed or assessed method to summon help, or that individual needs were reviewed to ensure this was effective and accessible for everyone. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that all people would be able to get help quickly in an emergency or if their needs changed overnight.

During the day, staff were present in the same rooms as people and were able to respond promptly when support was needed. Where people did not use words to communicate, we observed caring interactions that enabled people’s needs and choices to be met quickly.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Gaps in recruitment processes, rota planning and employment information meant staff did not always have structure or evidence of support in their roles.

There were no staff rotas in place, so we could not see how staffing was planned or how breaks were allocated. Staff had not received employment contracts or staff handbooks, meaning key information about their rights, responsibilities and entitlements was missing. Without this, it was unclear whether staff were given scheduled breaks or how these were managed in practice. The registered manager told us, “This is a family environment, so we get natural breaks regularly.”

We found that the service did not have completed application forms or new starter information for permanent or bank staff. This meant important information about staff health, wellbeing and any reasonable adjustments they might need had not been recorded. As a result, the provider could not demonstrate that staff were being supported in line with their individual needs or legal requirements.

It was not always clear whether there were enough staff to support people with individual activities outside the home. The registered manager told us that bank staff would be called in if a person using the service asked to go out into the community with one staff member.

Staff told us they felt valued by the registered manager and felt safe at work.