Springfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s needs were assessed regularly to ensure their changing needs were met. The service encouraged people, their relatives and advocates to be part of this process. People’s mental capacity to make decisions had been appropriately assessed and restrictions put in place to keep people safe when necessary. In these situations, the least restrictive option had been used to ensure people still had maximum choice and freedom.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s health care, wellbeing and communication needs were assessed to identify people’s needs, wishes and preferences. People’s equality and diversity needs and preferences were reflected to ensure their protected characteristics such as religion or sexuality were considered. People’s individual preferences and methods of communication were reflected in their care and support plans.

Most people were unable to tell us about their experience of care. We observed people and staff interacting in a warm and positive manner. Staff were aware of and changed their communication style depending on who they were supporting and engaging with.

Staff told us people’s needs were kept under review and care and support plans were updated when any changes were needed. Staff had a clear understanding of people’s care and support needs and communicated effectively. A member of staff commented, “People are involved in their care planning through the key worker sessions. The care plans are shared and signed by the residents and there is the opportunity to add or change anything at any time. The care plans are formally reviewed every 6 months.”

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Throughout the site visit people were supported without unnecessary restrictions. Relatives told us they were involved with decisions about their loved one’s care and support. Throughout the on-site assessment we observed staff seeking consent and involving people in their day-to-day decisions.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Mental capacity assessments had been carried out to establish whether people had capacity to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Records of best interest meetings confirmed the relevant people had been involved in making decisions.

Staff understood, when people were not able to make complex decisions themselves, best interest meetings needed to be held with people, their families and the relevant health care professionals where this was identified as appropriate. This was to make sure decisions were made in people’s best interest. Staff knew about people’s capacity to make decisions through verbal or nonverbal means, and this was documented. A member of staff said, “You respect someone and give them dignity by seeking their consent first. You make sure they are well covered when you are doing personal care and talk to them through everything. You keep the door shut and the curtains and you call them by their preferred name.”