You are here

Archived: Springfield Park Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2018

This inspection took place on 16 July 2018 and was unannounced. A second day of inspection took place on 19 July 2018 which was announced. We last inspected Springfield Park November 2015 and found it was meeting all the regulations we inspected against. We rated it good in all domains. During this inspection we found concerns in relation to some records and governance so have rated it requires improvement.

Springfield Park is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Springfield Park can accommodate 30 people in one adapted building across two floors. At the time of the inspection 20 people were resident, some of whom were living with a dementia.

The service had a registered manager who was on a planned absence at the time of the inspection. We had been notified of this and the deputy manager was managing the home. 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.

This is the first time the service has been rated Requires Improvement. We found a breach of regulation in relation to good governance. Care records for people receiving respite care had either not been written or hadn’t been reviewed since October 2016. There was a failure to follow the providers own policy in relation to respite and short stay admissions. Respite care files had not been audited and the required improvements had not been identified. The deputy manager was responsive to our concerns and immediately took action to develop care plans.

Some care records also lacked detail in relation to the support people needed with regards to the provision of personal care and mobility.

Staff knew people well and we observed care and treatment was provided in a safe and responsive manner. The gaps in care records had not had any direct impact on people’s care. However, the provider is required to maintain accurate, complete and contemporaneous records in respect of each person’s care.

We have made a recommendation that the provider review best practice in relation to fire safety. A fire risk assessment had not been updated to evidence actions had been completed. We found some fire doors were closing at high speed. This was rectified after the inspection. Staff could explain how they would safely evacuate people in the event of a fire.

The environment was in need of an update and the deputy manager was able to offer reassurances that work was in progress to replace carpets and furniture and to improve the décor.

Risk assessments had been completed for all people permanently resident at Springfield Park. Any incidents or accidents were recorded and the information used to review and update risk assessments.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to safeguard people from harm and were confident the registered manager would act to resolve concerns and ensure people’s safety. All concerns were logged and investigated.

Medicines were managed safely and had recently been audited by the pharmacist. Regular medicine audits had been completed and if necessary action had been taken to ensure improvements were made.

People were supported with their nutrition and hydration needs and had access to healthcare professionals such as dieticians, speech and language therapy and GPs and consultants.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and recruitment procedures were in place.

Staff told us they had the required training to ensure they could meet people’s needs and that they were well supported by the deputy manager. The team worked well together and supported each other so people received care that was appropriate, timely and respectful.

People and their relatives were complimentary of the care they received and of the approach from the deputy manager. One relative said, “The care is fabulous!”

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place and were we identified gaps they had been completed by day two of the inspection.

Activities were provided for people and the staff were committed to fundraising so there was an increased budget for entertainers and events. Staff had personally given funds to the home so a small area at the front of the building could be updated to be a patio area for people to sit with their relatives.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas



Updated 25 August 2018

The service was safe.

We have made a recommendation about fire safety records.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and were confident any concerns would be addressed.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs in a safe way.



Updated 25 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and supported people to make decisions.

Appropriate training was provided and staff told us they were well trained and well supported.

People were supported with nutrition and hydration needs and had access to external healthcare professionals.



Updated 25 August 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives told us the staff were kind and caring.

We observed people were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained.

Feedback had been sought and information was displayed about action taken to address comments.


Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was not consistently responsive.

We have made a recommendation about care records for people having a respite stay at Springfield Park.

Complaints were logged and investigated and relatives told us they had no complaints.

Activities were provided and staff had developed an outside area for people at the front of the home.


Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

The providers quality assurance system had not been effective in ensuring compliance and improving the quality and safety of the service.

The deputy manager was responsive to concerns raised during the inspection and acted immediately to rectify them.

Staff and relatives were complimentary of the deputy manager and their leadership style.