Archived: Springfield House

Updated 1 March 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This inspection was completed by one inspector.

Service and service type:

Springfield House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with CQC. This means they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

Before our inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included correspondence we had received, and notifications submitted by the service. A notification must be sent to CQC every time a significant incident has taken place, for example, where a person who uses the service experiences a serious injury.

We did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This was because we had changed our inspection dates. 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.

We gathered information from the local authority and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. This information was reviewed and used to assist with this inspection.

At the time of this inspection there were four people using the service. We spoke with two people living at the home and a visiting health care professional, to obtain their views of the support provided. Two people declined our invitation to talk with them. We spoke with one relative on the telephone.

We spoke with six members of staff which included the registered manager, two senior support workers, two support workers and the provider locality manager.

We looked at two people’s care records, two medicine administration records, the staff training and supervision matrix and two staff files which included recruitment checks, supervisions, appraisals and training records. We also looked at other records relating to the management of the service, such as quality assurance audits.

We spent time observing the daily life in the service and we looked around the building to check environmental safety and cleanliness.

Updated 1 March 2019

About the service: Springfield House is a care home that provides accommodation and personal or nursing care for up to four people with a learning disability, mental health issues and behaviours that challenge. The home is situated in Penistone, South Yorkshire near local shops and public transport. It is a detached house with a separate secure rear garden accessed through the house. There were four people living at the home on the day of this inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

• The service had improved since the last inspection. Staff supervision had increased, and these improvements had been embedded. People who used the service and staff were now being asked to provide feedback on the service. This feedback was sought through questionnaires and/or meetings on a one to one basis or in groups.

• People told us they ‘liked’ the staff and they were positive about how they were treated by staff. People told us they were in control of their day to day routines and staff supported them to remain independent and access and participate in activities in the home and in the community. Staff asked people for consent before providing support.

• People felt safe whilst residing at Springfield House. Recruitment processes were robust and thorough checks were completed before staff started working in the home. We saw there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to make sure people’s care needs were met. Staff supported people safely with their medicines.

• Risks to people receiving care at Springfield House were assessed and kept under review. People’s needs were assessed and support plans were developed to guide staff in how to support each person. People were involved in monthly reviews about their support with their key worker at Springfield House.

• Staff had received training and supervision to ensure staff had the knowledge to provide people with appropriate care.

• People had access to health professionals as required. Community health professionals provided positive feedback about the service commenting particularly about the person centred information contained in people’s support plans.

• The service was consistently well-led. People felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager or provider and were confident they would be addressed. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and we observed the staff team work well together.

• The registered manager and provider coordinated a wide range of quality checks and audits of the service to make sure the care and support provided was of high quality. This supported the continuous improvement of the service.

• The service met the characteristics of good in all key questions.

• More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated requires improvement (published 3 March 2018).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating awarded at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service. We plan to complete a further inspection in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated good.