You are here

Springfield House Nursing Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

Springfield House is a care home with nursing that is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 27 older people. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is set out over three floors with easy access between floors via a lift. There are two lounge and dining areas for people to use.

This unannounced inspection took place on 31 July 2018. At the time of our inspection 21 people were living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager assisted us with our inspection.

This was the first inspection of this service under the new provider arrangements. We carried out this inspection to check that the service was meeting all the requirements of regulation and providing good and safe care to people. We found that it was and we identified no concerns that would indicate people were not being cared for appropriately.

People’s care plans were detailed and where a person’s needs changed staff responded to this. However, we found some records relating to people were not contemporaneous, although staff knew people’s care needs well. We have made a recommendation to the registered provider in this respect.

People received the medicines that were prescribed for them and medicines storage followed good practice. There were a sufficient number of staff on duty, who had been recruited through a robust recruitment process to care for people. People were safeguarded from abuse as staff understood their responsibility in this respect.

People were cared for by staff who were kind, caring, attentive and showed respect towards them. People were encouraged to be independent and they could make decisions about their care. Where there were restrictions in place staff followed the principals of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People’s consent was sought at every stage.

People were cared for by a consistent staff team who had access to the training and supervision they required in order to carry out their role in a competent manner. Staff worked together as a team and the culture within the service was good. Staff met on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of the service and staff had the opportunity to meet with the line manager to discuss their work.

Staff ensured people had access to health care professionals when they needed it. People could choose the foods they ate and where people had a particular dietary requirement these were recognised by staff.

Where people had accidents or incidents staff took appropriate action and as such reflected on incidents to aid their learning. Risks to people had been identified and guidance was in place for staff. Before people moved into the home their needs were assessed to ensure staff could provide effective, safe and responsive care. The home was clean with no malodours and equipment was provided for people when they needed it, such as a hoist or walking frame.

In the event of a fire there was fire information available for staff and the emergency services and regular checks on the health and safety aspect of the service were carried out.

People were given the opportunity to give their feedback and staff actively sought suggestions from people. People had access to a range of activities and were happy with the care they received from staff. They told us if they had any concerns or complaints the would know who to speak to.

The registered manager had developed relationships with other local and national external agencies t

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

The service was safe.

People�s medicines were managed correctly.

Deployment of staff was such that people received the care they needed when they needed it. Staff went through a robust recruitment process before commencing at the service.

Risk assessments were in place for people and good infection control processes were followed by staff to reduce the risk of spreading infection.

Staff were knowledgeable in relation to their safeguarding responsibilities and when accidents and incidents occurred these were recorded and lessons were learnt.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had access to appropriate support, supervision and training.

People�s consent was sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People�s nutritional needs were assessed and individual dietary needs were met.

People�s healthcare needs were monitored effectively.

Before people moved into the home their needs were assessed and the environment offered appropriate facilities for people.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

The service was caring.

People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them.

Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity.

Staff supported people in a way that promoted their independence and people could make their own decisions about their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

The service was responsive.

No one was receiving end of life care however the service had taken steps to start to discuss people�s wishes with them.

Care plans were detailed and were regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to reflect people�s needs.

People had opportunities to take part in activities, outings and events.

Complaints were managed and investigated appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

The service was well-led.

There was an open culture in which feedback was encouraged and used to improve the service.

The provider had implemented effective systems of quality monitoring and auditing. Staff worked with external agencies to widen the service that was offered to people.

People and staff were given the opportunity to feed in suggestions in relation to the service.