Archived: Springfield Park Nursing Home

Springfield Park Nursing Home is a large detached building that is situated in parkland. The home provides both nursing and personal care for up to 70 people. On the day of our inspection there were 66 people living in the service.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

During this inspection we found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The service was not following specific specialist nutritional advice that had been given in relation to a person’s nutritional requirements and how they were to be supported on a daily basis.

We have made a recommendation relating to the stimulation for people who use the service, particularly those living with dementia.

We have made a recommendation relating to the end of life wishes of people, particularly those from an ethnic background.

The service had a safeguarding policy and procedure in place. This gave staff clear examples of the types of abuse and signs that they needed to observe for and report on.

People who used the service had risk assessments in place for health related issues. We also saw environmental risk assessments had been completed to ensure the health and safety of people who used the service.

We found the registered manager followed robust recruitment processes and ensured relevant checks had been undertaken prior to new staff commencing. This ensured their suitability to work in the service.

Medicines within the service were managed safely. Only staff that were trained were permitted to administer medicines and their competencies were checked on a regular basis. The service had a medicines policy and procedure in place for staff to follow.

We observed the service to be clean and tidy and free from offensive odours. Sufficient quantities of personal protective equipment (PPE), including disposable gloves and aprons were available for staff members.

We saw people could choose where they wished to eat their meals. This included a choice of three dining rooms or to remain in their bedrooms.

Records showed that those people who were able to had consented to their care and treatment. For those who lacked capacity we saw that best interest meetings had been held with the relevant people and decisions made in the person’s best interest.

We saw some corridors were brightly decorated with travel paintings, posters, poems and personal pictures of people who used the service and their families. Corridors were wide enough for people who used wheelchairs to manoeuvre easily and access all areas of the service.

One staff member told us they treated all the people who used the service the way they would want to be cared for. Another staff member told us in their opinion the service passes the ‘mums test’.

Quality assurance systems that were in place were sufficiently robust to identify areas for improvement. We saw a number of audits were undertaken within the service such as, medicines, falls and cleaning.

Records showed that staff meetings and service user meetings were held on a regular basis. These gave people the opportunity to comment on the service and highlight any issues, compliments or concerns.

People we spoke with were happy living at Springfield Park. We were told; 'They [the staff] respect your dignity', 'You can't fault the staff' and 'I enjoy the activities'.

Where possible, people were involved in planning and agreeing their care and support. People's care records identified their individual needs and wishes so that they received the level of support they required.

Staff worked collaboratively with other agencies so that people's social, emotional and physical needs were effectively met.

Suitable arrangements were in place with regards to safeguarding and protection ensuring people's rights were upheld.

Specialist equipment to meet the complex needs of people was available throughout the home. This helped to promote people's independence as well as support people in a way which ensured their safety.

On-going training and support was made available to assist and develop the staff team. Staff spoken with said the manager was 'approachable' and that there was 'good team work' within the home.

The provider continued to monitor and review the service provided. This ensures people receive a safe and effective service.

Both people confirmed staff asked for verbal consent before providing treatment and personal care.

Neither person had any concerns in relation to the medication process and felt the process was safe. Neither had any concerns related to the wellbeing of any people.

The people we spoke with told us they felt there were enough staff around to assist the people. They told us that they had no concerns about the care they received and would speak to the Registered Manager if they had any concerns or complaints.