Archived: Springfield Care Centre

Updated 13 February 2015

We visited the service on the 7 and 8 August 2014. The inspection team on 7 August 2014 consisted of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. The adult social care inspector carried out a second day of inspection on 8 August 2014, and a pharmacy inspector visited the service on 12 August 2014.

During the inspection we spoke with 16 people using the service, nine visitors or relatives of the people, three social care and one healthcare professional, four care staff, the registered manager and the area manager.

We looked at 11 people’s care records and six staff files. We reviewed how the provider safeguarded people, how they managed complaints and checked the quality of their service. We also looked at records kept for staff training and staff rota.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the provider information return (PIR), notifications, safeguarding alerts and outcomes and information from the local authority. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The PIR also provides data about the organisation and service.

At our previous inspection in February 2014, we found the provider was meeting regulations in relation to outcomes we inspected.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 13 February 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service. This inspection was unannounced.

Springfield is a nursing home registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 80 people. At the time of the visit there were 77 people using the service. The service was arranged into six units accommodating 10 to 15 people.

At our previous inspection in February 2014, we found the provider was meeting the regulations we inspected.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

We found that the administration of ‘as required’ medicines were not always available or the information contained within them was not adequate. This meant there was not always guidance for staff about when it would be appropriate to administer some medicines such as a medicine used for agitation or laxatives. This was a risk to the health and well-being of people who used the service.

This was a breach of Regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010

People told us they felt safe using the service. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and the service had policies and procedures in place to ensure that the service responded appropriately to allegations or suspicions of abuse. The service ensured that people’s human rights were respected and took action to assess and minimise risks to people. Staff had received training on behaviour that may challenge and the service consulted with other professionals about managing aspects of behaviour safely.

All of the people we spoke with said that staff were approachable, they could chat with the staff and that they were listened to. Throughout our inspection we observed that staff were caring and attentive to people. Staff showed dignity and respect and demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs.

People's views about the staffing level varied. Some people told us there were not enough staff but others felt that staffing level was adequate. However, all people we spoke with made positive comments about the staff. Their comments included, “[Staff] are very caring and treat everybody as an individual. The carers are always treating people nicely. They are very caring and polite.”

Staff had access to information, support and training that they needed to do their jobs well. The provider’s training programme was designed to meet the needs of people using the service so that staff were able to provide care and support that met people's needs.

Care plans and risk assessments were completed and reviewed regularly. This ensured that there was appropriate care and support that reflected and met each person's needs.

The provider worked with relevant social and health care professionals. This ensured that there was good communication and co-ordination between relevant people to work together to meet people's needs.