Archived: Springfield Mind Limited

At the time of the inspection, Springfield Mind was not providing personal care to people. Therefore, we were unable to seek the views and experiences of people who used the agency. We were also unable to speak with staff who had previously provided personal care to people because they had left the agency.

We were able to look at two care records and other supporting documents for people who had previously used the agency. We also looked at examples of policies, procedures and records to help us answer our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We inspected this agency in October 2013. We identified improvements were required in the quality of the service, accuracy of records and recruitment of staff. We found the provider had made changes since our previous inspection and improvements had been made in these areas of concern.

We saw people's care records reflected their care needs. We found some people had appropriate risk assessments in place, although one care record did not contain the appropriate risk assessments or support from other health professionals to manage risks effectively.

We found people's care records were regularly evaluated and reviewed.

We spoke with one staff member who provided care and found they understood the care and support needs of the people they had supported.

Is the service effective?

We saw records that showed people and their relatives had been involved in the planning and delivery of the care and support they required.

Staff we spoke with understood the needs of the people they supported and what they told us was reflected in people's care plans.

The provider had received complaints and we found the provider had responded appropriately to these complaints. We found the provider had learnt from these complaints and put systems in place to minimise the potential of further complaints being received.

The registered manager was aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and said although this had not been used with people who used the agency, it would be followed if it became necessary.

Is the service caring?

Staff we spoke with were positive about their role. One staff member said: 'It can be stressful at times but it is thoroughly rewarding'.

Training records showed staff had completed relevant training in areas such as safeguarding adults, mental health awareness, mental health crisis, dementia and first aid. This meant people were cared for by staff that were suitably skilled and qualified to care for them.

Is the service responsive?

We found people were asked for their views about their care and support and these were acted on. We saw the provider's latest customer quality survey results from January 2014. The results of the survey showed people were generally happy with the service and the survey also identified improvements. We were told an action plan was being completed and any improvements identified would be made.

Records showed people usually received care from the same staff member. We were told this was important to people who suffered from dementia or mental health related conditions because it helped reduce people's anxiety and fears.

We found the agency was responsive to people's changing needs. We found the provider monitored missed calls. We saw most of the missed calls were because people had other things planned and did not require support.

Is the service well led?

We found the service had an effective quality assurance system in place and any identified actions had led to improvements in the service people received.

We found evidence that improvements had been made to the service following investigation of concerns.

We found the provider completed unannounced observations on staff to ensure people were being cared and supported appropriately. Any issues identified were addressed with the staff member concerned and further spot checks were planned.

We captured the views of people using the service by speaking with four people who told us they were happy with the care and support they had received through the service. One person said, 'I'm over the moon. They are first class young ladies and are obliging. Nothing is too much trouble'.

We looked to see whether the provider was now compliant against the 'Requirements relating to workers' and 'Records' outcomes. We found evidence showing that the provider's recruitment process had not been followed consistently. This had resulted in missing information and people's original named references not being collected. We looked at records belonging to two people using the service and found that these records were not complete in all areas.

We looked to see how the provider had assessed and monitored the quality of service provision and found there were limited systems in place.

We saw people had been involved in deciding their care and as such their needs had been accommodated. We were told people found care staff approachable and would identify any issues they had with their care worker. We saw systems in place to safeguard people against the risk of abuse.

We found some shortfalls in the providers recruitment procedures and completion of people's care records. We have asked the provider to take action in these two areas.