Background to this inspection
Updated
29 January 2022
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 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 2008.
As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.
This inspection took place on 12 January and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.
Updated
29 January 2022
Springfield Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The care home accommodates 40 people across two floors, some people who are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection 36 people were being supported in the home.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
The service had 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’
Risks to people and the environment were assessed and plans put in place to mitigate against them. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly.
Recruitment processes were in place with all necessary checks completed before staff commenced employment.
The provider used a dependency tool to ensure staffing levels were appropriate. The dependency tool was reviewed regularly.
The provider had a business continuity plan in place in case of an emergency. People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place which were updated regularly.
Staff were aware of safeguarding processes and knew how to raise concerns. Where lessons could be learnt from safeguarding concerns these were used to improve the service. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored as part of the provider’s quality assurance system.
The provider ensured appropriate health and safety checks were completed. We found up to date certificates were in place which reflected fire inspections, gas safety checks and portable appliance tests (PAT) had taken place.
Staff completed an induction on commencement of employment. We found staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal. Opportunities were available for staff to discuss performance and development. Staff training was up to date.
People’s nutritional needs were assessed. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals when necessary and were supported with health and well-being appointments.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People and relatives felt the service was caring. Staff provided support in a respectful manner ensuring people’s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted.
Care plans were personalised to meet people’s needs.
People enjoyed a range of activities both inside and outside the home. The service had positive links with the community with people accessing the theatre, local centres and shops.
The provider had a complaints process in place which was accessible to people and relatives.
Staff were extremely positive about the registered manager. They confirmed they felt supported and could raise concerns.
We observed the registered manager was visible in the service and found people interacted with them in an open manner. People and relatives felt the management approach in the home was positive.
The provider worked closely with outside agencies and other stakeholders such as commissioners and social workers.
The premises were well suited to people’s needs, with ample dining and communal spaces. Dementia friendly areas were situated in several areas of the home. Bedrooms were personalised to people’s individual taste. Bathrooms were designed to incorporate the needs of people living at the home. The garden area was accessible to people.