You are here

Archived: Springfield Park Nursing Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 November 2017

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. There were 61 people accommodated at the home on the days of the inspection.

The service had a registered manager. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This was the first rated inspection for this home because there was a new provider who first registered with the Care Quality Commission in November 2016.

The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding concerns. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be safe to work with vulnerable adults.

The administration of medicines was safe. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow.

The home was clean, tidy and did not contain any offensive odours. The environment was maintained at a good level and homely in character.

There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities. This helped to protect the health and welfare of staff and people who used the service.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and there was a business plan for any unforeseen emergencies.

People were encouraged to eat and drink to ensure they were hydrated and well fed. The service provided one choice of main meal with other alternatives such as sandwiches or baked potatoes. The registered manager said they would look at providing an alternative main meal.

Most staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager was aware of her responsibilities of how to apply for any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files and the training matrix showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.

We observed there were good interactions between staff and people who used the service. People told us staff were kind and caring.

We saw from our observations of staff and records that people who used the service were given choices in many aspects of their lives and helped to remain independent where possible.

We saw that the quality of care plans gave staff sufficient information to look after people accommodated at the care home and they were regularly reviewed. Plans of care contained people’s personal preferences so they could be treated as individuals.

We saw visitors were welcomed into the home and people could see their visitors in private if they wished.

Some staff had been trained in end of life care which should enable them to provide support to people who used the service and their family at the end of their life.

Activities were provided which were suitable to the age and gender of people who used the service.

Audits, quality assurance surveys and meetings helped the service analyse performance to help improve the service.

There was a suitable complaints procedure for people to raise any concerns.

Staff and people who used the service said

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 November 2017

The service was safe.

The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding issues. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.

Arrangements were in place to ensure medicines were safely administered. Staff had been trained in medicines administration and managers audited the system and staff competence.

Staff were recruited robustly to ensure they were safe to work with vulnerable adults.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained in the MCA and DoLS and should recognise what a deprivation of liberty is or how they must protect people’s rights.

Induction, training and supervision gave staff the knowledge and support they needed to satisfactorily care for the people who used the service.

There was a redecoration programme to improve the environment.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 November 2017

The service was caring.

We observed and were told staff were kind and caring.

We saw visitors were welcomed into the home and people could see their visitors in private if they wished.

We saw that people were offered choice in many aspects of their lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 November 2017

The service was responsive.

There was a suitable complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns. The manager of the home responded to any concerns or incidents in a timely manner and analysed them to try to improve the service.

People were able to join in activities suitable to their age, gender and ethnicity.

Plans of care were regularly reviewed and contained sufficient details for staff to deliver their care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 November 2017

The service was well-led.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of care and service provision at this care home.

Policies, procedures and other relevant documents were reviewed regularly to help ensure staff had up to date information.

People’s views were recorded in surveys and the service responded to what they said.