Springfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people to respond to changes in their needs.

Care records did not consistently capture the person’s own voice, views or preferences in a meaningful way. It was unclear whether people-or their relatives, where appropriate-had been actively involved in creating or reviewing their care plans. Although people lived together and shared a lifestyle in a family environment on a farm, there was limited evidence to demonstrate how the provider knew this was the lifestyle each person wanted or continued to want over time. There were no individualised weekly activity plans for people using the service, and we did not see evidence of consultation with people about how their care was delivered day to day. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that people were supported to review, confirm or change their choices, or that alternative lifestyles or preferences had been explored.

We also did not see evidence of multidisciplinary team meetings, meaning opportunities to work collaboratively with external professionals to shape care may have been missed.

However, care records did contain person centred information, and both staff and the registered manager knew people very well. We observed caring, individualised interactions during the inspection. One staff member told us, “I build a rapport with the [person] to find out their likes and dislikes. I always give people choices.” While this demonstrated positive day‑to‑day practice, this knowledge was not consistently recorded or used to evidence how people’s broader lifestyle choices were identified, reviewed or supported in a structured way.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and the local community, which helped ensure care was joined up, flexible and supported continuity.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s complex and varying health needs, and appropriate funding had been secured to support these. Staff had also received training that enabled them to meet people’s specific healthcare requirements safely and confidently.

One relative told us they had “learned a lot from Springfield House” about their family member’s health condition, demonstrating the provider’s commitment to sharing knowledge and supporting families.

Health professionals also spoke positively about the service’s proactive approach. One professional told us, “They're really proactive. They had a patient a while ago who wasn't well and they wanted to be as involved as possible. They wanted to be trained by us in catheter care and wound packing. They're very forthcoming and open in assisting with care. They really do go above and beyond.”

The provider did not always give people appropriate, accurate and up to date information in formats that met their individual needs. People were not consistently supported to understand their rights or how to raise concerns.

The service was set up as a family‑style home, and as such there was no posters or information displayed within shared areas. People’s care records included a “Residents’ Rights and Responsibilities” document presented in large print and pictorial formats intended to support understanding. They also contained a safeguarding/complaints leaflet to inform people how to raise concerns. However, these records were stored securely upstairs and were not readily accessible to the people using the service. This limited people’s opportunity to independently access information about their rights, including safeguarding and how to seek help or raise concerns.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and were clearly detailed in their care plans. We observed staff using skilled, respectful and appropriate communication techniques in practice, which helped support people’s understanding during day‑to‑day interactions.

Care records were stored securely. However, there was no evidence that staff had received training in GDPR or data protection. This meant the provider could not fully demonstrate that staff understood their responsibilities in relation to keeping people’s personal information safe.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or consistently tell them what had changed as a result of their feedback.

Resident meeting minutes were very brief and did not capture the voices of the people using the service. Minutes did not show people being consulted about meals they might want to try, activities they were interested in, things they were happy or unhappy about, or any changes they wished to see in the service. Although people were offered day‑to‑day choices, such as what meals they wanted to eat, there was limited evidence that these informal conversations were used in a meaningful or structured way to explore people’s wider preferences, aspirations or ideas for improving their lives. This meant regular opportunities to listen to people and involve them in shaping their care and daily life could have been missed.

However, people did have access to advocacy services where required, and relatives told us they felt confident raising concerns. A complaints policy was in place, and the provider had introduced a log to record feedback, complaints and compliments. Annual resident surveys had recently been implemented and there was evidence that some actions had been taken in response to people’s feedback. Staff and family surveys were also being completed, helping the provider gather wider views.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There were no unnecessary barriers for people with a learning disability or autistic people to be referred to, or admitted to, the service.

Before a new person moved in, the provider had implemented a clear assessment process to check whether the service could safely and effectively meet their needs. Although these assessments had not always been completed for people who were admitted in the past, the provider has since developed and implemented thorough assessment documentation. This means all future admissions will be supported by a detailed evaluation of each person’s needs, preferences and any potential risks.

The provider only declined admissions when assessments showed staff did not have the necessary skills to support the person safely, or when it was clear the person’s needs or presentation would not be compatible with those already living in the home. This helped protect people’s wellbeing and maintain a safe, supportive environment for everyone.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to or act on information relating to people who were most likely to experience inequality in their care. This meant people’s experiences and outcomes were not always tailored or improved in response to their individual needs, abilities or preferences.

People had access to activities, and they told us they enjoyed taking part in group sessions. The service also supported people to go on an annual holiday together, which people spoke about positively. However, activities were mainly group based, and there was little evidence of personalised or goal focused planning.

We also found limited evidence that the provider had considered or planned activities to meet the needs of autistic people or those with a learning disability. Staff did not consistently demonstrate an understanding of the impact of inequity, or their role in preventing or reducing this for people living in the home. As a result, people were not fully supported to access individualised opportunities beyond the home, leading to reduced participation in activities associated with active citizenship.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff knew people well and were caring in their approach, however the provider could not always demonstrate that people were given meaningful opportunities to shape their long-term care and support

End of life care plans were in place for people, but some were incomplete and did not fully reflect the person’s wishes, values or preferences. In one case, a relative had completed a form outlining the person’s end of life wishes, but this information had not been transferred into the person’s care plan.

There was limited evidence of proactive discussions with people (and their families where appropriate) about future planning, such as where they might want to live in the future, how they would like their independence supported as their needs changed, or how they wished significant life events to be handled.

Care plans did not consistently include information about people's long-term goals, aspirations or what was important to them as they aged.

We did not see evidence of advanced care planning conversations being revisited or reviewed. This meant opportunities may have been missed to help people prepare emotionally and practically for future changes.