We carried out a review of the data available to us about Springfield Healthcare (Hull) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Springfield Healthcare (Hull), you can give feedback on this service.
Springfield Healthcare is a domiciliary care service providing care and support to younger adults and older people, people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, who misuse drugs or alcohol, with mental health needs, a physical disability or sensory impairment. On the day of our inspection, there were 215 people using the service.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People who used the service were safe. Risks to people's health and wellbeing were appropriately assessed and managed. Staff were safely recruited and sufficient in number to support the geographical area. There was good infection control practice embedded in the service. Systems were in place to ensure lessons were learnt when things went wrong.
The service was effective. People were supported to receive care in a person-centred manner and this was reflected in care planning. Staff acknowledged, and respected people's needs and choices. Staff were effectively trained in topics relevant to their role. Staff understood the importance of working with other healthcare professionals to ensure people were supported to live healthier and independent lives.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service was caring. People received individualised care and were supported by staff that were kind, caring and compassionate. Staff valued people as individuals and had formed caring supportive relationships with them. Staff knew how people preferred their care and support to be provided. People were placed at the centre of the service and were consulted on every level.
Respect for privacy and dignity was at the heart of the culture and values of the service. Activities were promoted at an organisational level and staff worked tirelessly to prevent social isolation.
The service was responsive. People had personalised care plans that promoted independence. Staff identified people's information and communication needs. People and relatives knew how to make a complaint and felt confident they would be listened to.
The service was well-led. Systems had been developed to review how the service was managed and to review the quality of the care provision. The registered manager understood the importance of gaining people's views about the quality of the service.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 20 April 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information, we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection on 4 August 2014 the service was rated Good. This inspection took place on 2, 6 and 7 March 2017. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’
People were protected from abuse. Staff had training in how to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to raise concerns. The building was well maintained and equipment was serviced. Effective medicine management and infection control was in place to help maintain people’s safety.
Staff were recruited safely and in sufficient numbers to ensure that people’s needs were met.
People had their needs assessed and care plans and risk assessments were developed. People’s care was personalised in line with their preferences and needs and their nutritional needs were met. Staff contacted health care professionals for advice and guidance to maintain people’s wellbeing.
Staff supported people to have choice and control of their life. The policies and systems in place promoted this practice. Risks to people’s wellbeing were identified and staff promoted people’s independence.
The service positively promoted a caring approach to the people it supported, their families and staff. We observed the staff were caring, people using the service and their relatives confirmed this with us. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and their personal records were held securely to maintain confidentiality.
Staff were provided with training, supervision and appraisals. This allowed the management team and staff to discuss any performance issues or further training needs. Spot checks of people’s care were undertaken to help to maintain the standard of service provided.
An effective quality assurance system was in place which helped to identify any shortfalls so they could be addressed. The registered provider and registered manager used this system to improve the service.
There was a complaints procedure in place. People who used the service and their relatives were aware of this. Issues raised were investigated and resolved.
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
Baylea Domiciliary Care Agency is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide care and support to people in their own homes who are over the age of 18 living in the Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire. Their primary needs can be physical, learning disability or mental health. The agency’s office is based in the centre of Hull.
There was a registered manager in post at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the registered provider.
Staff were trained to recognise abuse and how to report this to ensure people were safe from harm. The provider’s recruitment systems ensured, as far as was practicable, people who used the service were not exposed to staff who had been barred from working with vulnerable adults.
Assessments had been done to make sure people were safe and not put at unnecessary risk. The provider had systems in place which ensured staff attended the visit on time and stayed for the allotted time of the visit. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The registered provider ensured staff were trained and received updated training on a regular basis and they had the right skills to meet people’s needs. Staff were enabled to develop their skills and were supported by the registered manager to further their development and gain further qualifications.
The registered manager and the registered provider reviewed the service provided by the agency and ensured changes were made where shortfalls were identified. The registered manager encouraged people who used the service, their relatives and staff to comment about the service provided and to suggest improvements. All suggestions, compliments and complaints were seen as productive and welcomed as a way of improving and moving the service forward.
We spoke with two people who lived in the community and received a service from the agency and they told us the care offered to them was very good. Comments included, "They are wonderful", "I'm thrilled with the carers" and "They come on time and do everything I need doing."
People told us the staff were respectful, courteous and polite at all times.
People told us they were supported to take their medication. Although there was a clear medication policy and staff undertook training, we found records were not always accurate and did not tally with the amount of stock in the person's home. The provider took immediate action and carried out an audit of every person they supported with their medicines and new systems and checks were implemented straight away.
Staff records showed us essential training was offered and updated on a regular basis. We spoke with staff who told us the induction process was thorough and refresher training was offered regularly.
People told us their views and complaints were listened to and they felt that action was taken immediately if there had been a problem.
People and relatives told us that the care offered was of a good standard and staff were respectful and promoted independence.
People told us that staff were, "Absolutely wonderful", "They spend time with my brother and listen to him" and "I think they are fantastic."
People told us their views and complaints were listened to and they felt that action was taken immediately if there had been a problem.
We saw written evidence to confirm that people who received a service had their views sought and listened to. We also saw staff records that showed us essential training was offered and updated on a regular basis.
The care manager told us she had been in post for three months and following her probationary interview an application to become registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC) would be submitted. The provider gave us assurances that the application would be submitted by the end of September 2012.