Spring Mount

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Written records did not consistently reflect the person‑centred approach observed in practice. Key areas of care planning and risk management lacked sufficient detail, and some documents were not updated following changes in people’s needs. Overall, records did not reliably support safe, consistent and personalised care.

However, we observed many positive, person-centred interactions between staff and people. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs, wishes, and preferences, which was reflected in the way they engaged with people on a day-to-day basis. Some sections of care plans also contained good person-centred detail, outlining what was important to people and how they preferred to be supported.

Overall, while staff demonstrated a strong commitment to person-centred care in practice, improvements were required to ensure written records consistently reflected this approach and fully support individualised care planning and risk management.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People and their relatives told us they felt they received the care, support, and treatment they were funded for. Relatives reported that staff worked flexibly with other professionals to provide the care required for their loved ones and described staffing as consistent.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs and collaborated effectively with external professionals. For example, staff worked with hospital teams to discuss whether the service could accommodate and provide safe care, aiming to maintain continuity and ensure a smooth transition.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Relatives told us they had been involved in care planning and felt able to request access to care plans whenever they wished. This supported transparency and helped relatives remain informed and involved in people’s care. We also observed dementia-friendly signage throughout the service, which supported orientation and understanding.

Two people who spoke a different language were unable to contribute to reviewing their care plans in English, but their relatives were included to support them and ensure inclusivity.

We did not see policies, protocols, or complaints information available in formats other than written English; however, we were told these can be provided in alternative formats on request. At the time of the assessment, no one had requested information in other formats.

Overall, information was made accessible and transparent, supporting people and relatives to remain informed and involved in care decisions, and appropriate arrangements were in place to provide information in alternative formats if needed.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had sought feedback from relatives through annual surveys, which demonstrated good engagement and provided opportunities for relatives to share suggestions for improvement. We saw evidence some actions had already been taken in response to ideas raised, showing feedback was being considered and used to inform service development.

There was no evidence relative or resident meetings had taken place, despite these having been requested. This limits opportunities for people and relatives to receive updates, ask questions, and contribute to service improvements in a more interactive way. The provider had started to plan meetings following assessment feedback. However, people and relatives told us they felt they could approach the provider at any time to give feedback or share any concerns.

Staff surveys had been completed, and weekly staff meetings were taking place. These records demonstrated staff were kept informed of changes within the service and had opportunities to be involved in discussions and updates.

No formal complaints had been received. We reviewed a number of positive compliments and messages of thanks for staff, the service, and the care provided to people, indicating high levels of satisfaction among people and their relatives.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People, relatives and professionals told us the service was easy to contact and that they knew how to get in touch at any time. Relatives also spoke positively about the visiting booking system and told us they felt welcomed into the home and experienced no barriers when accessing the service. One relative told us, “They always keep me up to date with [person’s] care. They are very easy to contact by phone or email.”

Admissions were considered in line with people’s dementia diagnoses, with the intention of enabling people to move freely around the home and access outdoor areas. This helped make the service more appealing and accessible to people with different needs. People were allocated bedrooms based on their individual abilities. For example, ground-floor bedrooms were available for people who required the use of track hoists or who were unable to safely manage stairs, which supported people to maintain their independence. We saw reasonable adjustments had been considered and implemented to meet people’s needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

We observed staff treating people equally and with respect, including recognising and responding appropriately to people’s protected characteristics. Where people spoke a different language, staff who spoke the same language were available on shift, supporting inclusion and helping people to communicate their needs effectively. One relative told us, “English is not [Person’s] first language, we are very happy as a family that there are staff members that can communicate with [Person] in their own language. It has made a massive difference in meeting [Person’s] needs.”

People and relatives did not raise any concerns about discrimination. Some care plans included specific information relating to people’s protected characteristics, demonstrating these had been considered and reasonable adjustments had been made where required to support equitable outcomes.

Staff told us they had received equality and diversity training and were able to clearly explain how they promoted equality in their day-to-day practice. This helped to ensure people experienced fair, consistent, and inclusive care and support.

People were 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.

At the time of our assessment there was no one receiving end of life care; however, staff had received training in how to provide safe and effective care and treatment to people at the end of life. Staff also told us they were confident in how to provide safe care and treatment to people who were approaching and at the end of life.

DNACPR documentation was in place where required, alongside care plans to guide staff should this situation arise. We did not see any wider examples of end of life care planning within the records we reviewed, however the provider demonstrated an understanding of the requirements to ensure people’s wishes and preferences were clearly documented and understood in advance.

One relative told us, “We are not sure what the future holds for [person], but we are able to discuss with the home any future plans as they unfold. The home has given me my life back, I was happy for them to take over.”