You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 November 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 30 October 2018 and was unannounced.

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

Springdale is registered to accommodate up to 36 people. Care is provided over two floors. There are communal areas that people can reside in along with space for dining on the ground floor. At the time of our inspection visit, 32 people were living in the home.

A registered manager worked in 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.

At the last inspection of Springdale, we rated the home overall as Requires Improvement. This was because some equipment that people used such as commodes were unclean, staff were not consistently caring and improvements were needed to the provider’s governance systems. This resulted in three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question of safe, caring, responsive and well led to at least good. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in most areas and therefore, the provider was no longer in breach of any regulations. The overall rating for the home has now changed from requires improvement to good.

People received care from kind, caring and compassionate staff who treated them with dignity and respect. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff had received sufficient training and supervision to provide people with effective care and they had sought people’s consent in line with the relevant legislation.

Most risks to people’s safety had been assessed and managed well and there were enough staff available to meet people’s individual needs and preferences.

People had received their oral medicines appropriately however, some people had not received their prescribed creams as they should have done.

There were several activities that people could participate in to enhance their wellbeing and people had choice and control over how they wanted to receive their care.

The home had been adapted to meet people’s needs and regular checks were in place to ensure it was safe for people to live in. It was also clean as was the equipment that people used such as commodes, wheelchairs and crash mats. Staff used good practice to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.

A culture of treating people as individuals and of providing compassionate care had been instilled within the home. The provider, staff and management had a drive to continuously improve the quality of care people received. This was achieved by consulting people who lived in the home, relatives and with outside professionals and the community.

Staff had good morale, received clear direction and leadership and were happy working in the home. There was an open culture where people living in the home, relatives or staff could voice their opinion that would be listened to and respected.

Most of the provider’s governance systems had been effective at monitoring the quality and safety of care people received. However, these had not identified all issues which had exposed people to the risk of avoidable harm. The registered manager took immediate action to correct this during our inspection of this service.

Although improvements had been made within the home since the last inspection, the current registered manager had only been appointed te

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 November 2018

The service was safe.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe.

People received their oral medicines when they needed them. However, not everyone had received their prescribed creams correctly.

The home and equipment that people used was clean and systems were in place to protect people from the risk of infection.

Learning had occurred in most areas when any incidents or accidents had taken place.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 November 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had received training and supervision to provide people with effective care.

People received enough food and drink to meet their individual needs and had access to appropriate services to help them maintain their health.

The environment had been adapted to meet people’s needs and people’s consent had been sought in line with the relevant legislation.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 November 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. They treated people with dignity and respect.

People’s views on their care was encouraged and they were offered choice and had control over their care.

Staff encouraged people’s independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 November 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s received care that was based on their individual needs and preferences. They had access to various activities to enhance their wellbeing and quality of life.

People’s concerns and complaints had been listened to and used to improve the quality of care they received.

People received support at the end of their life to ensure it was dignified and pain free.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 23 November 2018

The service was not consistently well led.

The current governance systems in place had not identified that some people had not received their prescribed creams correctly. Also, some risks to people’s safety had not been assessed.

There was a registered manager in place. However, there is a need for consistent leadership within the home to ensure that improvements are sustained.

There was a drive for continuous improvement within the home. People and staff’s feedback was used to improve the quality of care people received.

Good community links were in place and some innovative projects were being explored for the benefit of people living in the home.