Springfield Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This was the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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, registered manager and management team had developed a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. For example, they had reviewed the concerns raised about the safety to people in relation to a particular tree growing in the grounds of the service. Although the tree had been planted over 25 years ago, and was nowhere near the premises, the provider decided to be cautious and just remove it. They then reviewed the whole grounds to make sure no other similar trees were growing on the site.

Staff worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. A relative said, “We were worried about having to quickly move [person] from the other home, but the staff made the move so smooth and have been fantastic at making [person] feel at ease.”

Staff worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The registered manager shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff had training and a good understanding of what to do to make sure people were protected from harm or abuse. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were sought when needed and any conditions imposed by them were followed.

The staff team worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. A person said, “I like to be in control of my life and staff understand this plus my limitations. They work closely with me to make sure I get to do what I want but within the boundaries of what’s achievable for me. This has worked really well.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Environmental risks were assessed and addressed. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care and worked with external professionals to review people’s aids. The provider had recently reviewed the suitability of the fire exits from the building, as some featured extended steps down to the ground and had decided to turn these into appropriately sloped ramps. They had found now people needed more support with their mobility, it was better to make exiting the building easier. People were supported to be as independent as possible within the environment. The staff team knew who to contact when people might benefit from additional aids or equipment, which staff knew how to use.

Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. People confirmed there were always enough staff on duty. Recruitment practices were meeting requirements. The provider promoted a learning culture and ensured staff had access to a wide range of training. Staff had received mandatory and condition specific training. Staff supervision sessions were completed in line with the provider's policy. A person said, “They are very good and there is always someone close by if I need a hand.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff followed the required infection control guidelines.

Staff made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff who administered medicines had the appropriate training and competency checks. Staff worked closely with the GP and pharmacist to make sure medicines were managed appropriately.