• Care Home
  • Care home

Springfield House Nursing Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

6 Stoke Road, Cobham, Surrey, KT11 3AS (01932) 862580

Provided and run by:
Springfield House Nursing Home

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Our view of the service

About the service

Springfield House Nursing Home is a family owned and operated care home and is registered to provide care, nursing and support for up to 27 people.

Who the service is for
The service provides nursing care, treatment and support for older people and those living with specific health and medical conditions, including those living with dementia.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 24 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People were supported by staff who knew them well, many of the staff working in the home had long service. They told us they were a family. Risks to people’s wellbeing and safety had been assessed and staff worked to ensure people remained well. Staff were recruited safely and had received training to enable them to carry out their role effectively. Staff told us they were supported and could rely on their colleagues. Medicines were managed safely and monitoring checks meant they were administered and stored correctly. The environment was homely and well maintained. Lessons were learnt from events that occurred within the service and learning was shared with the staff team. Staff knew how to raise concerns around safeguarding and records showed referrals were made as necessary to the local authority.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans were person-centred and reviewed regularly. Conversations around consent had taken place and were recorded in accordance with legal requirements. People were given choices and options about how they wished to spend their day. The provider used various ways to measure people’s general health and wellbeing including to monitor their weight, nutrition and skin integrity.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Staff were kind and caring and they told us they could rely on each other for support. Staff promoted people’s independence and told us this was to ensure people lived as well as they could for as long as possible. A member of staff told us people’s, “Independence is maintained, we make sure everything is ok and we try and meet their expectations.” People’s medical and health needs were well managed and there were continuous communications with external medical practitioners.

People’s care was person-centred, and we overwhelmingly received positive comments and feedback about the standard of care at Springfield House Nursing Home. The provider worked closely and effectively with many external health and social care professionals who were complimentary about the ethos of the service. The management team and staff worked towards the best for the people who lived at Springfield House Nursing Home, to ensure everyone had a voice.

Governance systems were operating effectively to ensure the smooth running of the service. Audits and quality assurance processes in place meant the registered manager could identify shortfalls and put actions in place to remedy them or prevent reoccurrence. The provider ensured regular checks of the service which meant governance was multi-layered. The provider worked well in partnership with others and were well known and respected within the local community. A professional told us, “It’s a tremendous home, for me it’s all about the quality of the care, and they do that here.” Another said, “They are brilliant here, they are really good, it’s unique.” The registered manager and provider sought to keep up to date with progress and changes in social care and attended workshops and opportunities for sharing good practice and learning.

31 July 2018

During a routine inspection

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 to improve the care people received at the service.