Springfields is a detached, stone built house which had been converted to offer accommodation and support for up to 24 people, all in single rooms. At the time of our visit there were 11 people living at the home.The inspection was undertaken by one inspector. This summary addresses five key questions: is the service safe; is the service effective; is the service caring; is the service responsive and is the service well led?
This summary is based on a visit to the home where we spoke to the manager and observed staff interactions with people using the service. We looked at records and talked in private with four visiting relatives, two people who used the service and four members of staff. We also spoke with the manager.
It is a legal requirement that a manger is registered with us for this service. Registration ensures a manger shares legal accountability for the service with the service provider. At the time of our visit to Springfields the manager was not registered with us. However, their application to us for registration was being processed.
The full report contains the evidence to support this summary.
Is the service safe?
The people we spoke with during our inspection visit were positive about the care provided by the home. Visitors told us they thought their relatives were safe. We asked visitors if they believed their relative was safe living at Springfields. Replies included 'definitely' and 'no question'.
Staff who we spoke with told us they believed people who used the service were protected from abuse or exploitation. Comments from senior staff included 'I can leave any staff and I know they [people who used the service] are looked after'.
Staff who we asked told us that complaints would be listened to. They also told us they understood their responsibility to 'blow the whistle' if necessary.
During a brief tour of the building, including communal areas and a selection of bedrooms, we saw no obvious risks to people's health and safety. Staff confirmed that they were provided with personal protective equipment such as disposable gloves and aprons, to minimise the risk of cross infection.
Kitchen staff maintained the records in the 'Safer Food Better Business' folder. These checks and records helped to ensure that food was stored, and meals were prepared, safely.
People were provided with ample food and drink.
Is the service effective?
Each individual's care needs were assessed and reviewed. A care plan was developed on the basis of the assessment. People told us they believed they could contribute to discussion about the way their care needs were being met and they would be listened to. People told us the staff were competent. One visitor, when talking about their relative's experience of the home told us 'since moving here she is much improved'. They also said 'she loves it, she absolutely loves it'.
We were told that many of the staff had worked at the home for several years. This consistency would help to provide appropriate and effective care to people using the service.
Staff had access to training opportunities and felt competent to undertake the tasks expected of them. Staff told us the systems for keeping them up to date with the changing needs of people using the service were effective.
There were not robust, structured, quality monitoring procedures in place at the home. The absence of these procedures weakened the service's ability to demonstrate its effectiveness fully, or to identify risks in a timely manner.
Is the service caring?
All the people using the service who we asked and visitors who we spoke with spoke positively about the attitude of the staff. Comments from visitors included 'all the carers are wonderful'; '[I have a] good relationship with the staff' and '[they are] good staff ' down to earth ' and very caring'.
People using the service told us 'they [staff] are very good, you can't fault them' and 'they [staff] don't leave you unclean or unfed'.
Staff themselves also spoke positively about the caring attitude of their colleagues. We asked staff what they thought was the best thing about the home. Comments included 'it's a happy home now. Staff and residents',' [it is] dead homely with staff and residents' and 'I just enjoy working here. Staff are nice and you can have a laugh with the residents.'
Observations of staff interactions with people using the service indicated calm and relaxed relationships.
Is the service responsive?
We did not look specifically at the service's complaints procedure. However, people using the service and visitors who we asked during our visit said they believed they would be listened to if they had a complaint. This view was supported by people's comments about the relaxed and positive relationships with the staff team.
People's preferences were recorded.
People told us they would be listened to if they wanted to comment on any aspect of the care provided. Staff also told us they involved people in discussion about how best they could meet the person's needs. However, the absence of records to confirm people's involvement in the care planning process, and the absence of robust, structured, quality monitoring procedures weakened the service's ability fully to demonstrate its responsiveness.
Is the service well led?
The lines of accountability within the home were understood by the staff who we asked. Staff told us they knew to whom to report any incidents.
Everybody who we asked spoke positively about the manager. They were described as approachable and supportive. Staff were encouraged and supported in their personal development through training opportunities. This ethos applied equally to staff who had many years of experience at the home.
However, the lack of priority given to quality monitoring, undermined the service's ability to demonstrate that it was well led. This was exacerbated by the length of time taken to ensure the process for registering the manager with us was completed.