Springfield Grange

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating had improved and is now rated good. People's daily notes did not demonstrate that people were treated as individuals, as they were task orientated. Although people told us they were offered choice, we did not see any evidence of how the provider had adapted activities to meet people’s varied needs. People and their relatives told us that they felt respected and well cared for by kind staff. People and their relatives also confirmed staff were responsive and sought appropriate support from healthcare professionals, when required.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives told us that they felt respected and well cared for by kind staff. Comments included, “The staff are as kind as any I know. They put the consideration of others first” and “The staff are very kind and patient. They treat [relative] with respect and dignity.”

Staff told us how they treated people with dignity and kindness. Staff spoke about the importance of spending time with people and understanding their needs. A staff member told us, “To promote dignity, I ensure people are covered at all times, I close curtains, respect their opinions, care for them the way they want and talk to them.”

We received feedback from the local authority following a recent visit where no issues were raised regarding people being treated with dignity.

We observed throughout the day that people were mostly treated with kindness and respect. For example, we observed a staff member holding hands with a person who had earlier shown signs of distress, the person seemed calmed and comforted by this contact. Another person was struggling with the TV remote, a staff member approached to help and support the person and asked them what they would like on. We did however see occasions where people were ‘done to’ and not asked or informed. We also observed 1 staff member appeared to get frustrated with a person who was not responding to their requests or behaving as they wished.

People and relatives told us staff treated them with respect. Comments included, “They understand me and my needs. If I ask them something they will do it as soon as they can” and “Kindness and humanity is shown to [my relative].”

Staff members we spoke with were aware of the importance of treating people as individuals. For example, 1 staff member said, “Everyone is different, and people all have their individual choices and preferences. We ensure that these are respected, and people are cared for as they wish.” However, we saw on occasion that people were not always asked prior to staff assisting them or informed of what was happening to them.

We observed people being offered choices for food and drinks. We also saw some activities were being offered, but these were not always tailored to people’s needs. For example, during our site visit, chocolate crispy bun making was being undertaken but it was clear that the person being offered this activity was not interested. However, no alternative activity option was offered to the person.

People's daily notes did not demonstrate that people were treated as individuals, as they were task orientated and did not give any indication of what had worked and not worked for people in everyday activities. Care plans also lacked background information about the person, such as their former employment and family tree. This meant that new staff members would find it difficult to know people on a personal level, until they had supported them for some time. Care plans did not clearly record people’s communication needs either. We shared our concerns with the manager, who acknowledged the content of people’s care records was an area for improvement.

People told us they were offered choices, and these were respected. People and their relatives told us visitors were welcomed and there were no restrictions on when people could visit.

We were told how people had been involved in activities and saw evidence of some people going out to the allotment, or to the local shops. The manager and staff told us that they have a resident of the day system in place which allowed staff to get to know people, including their likes, dislikes and how they wished to be cared for. However, we found this was not always happening as planned. The manager and staff acknowledged that this was an area for improvement.

At the time of our assessment there were no activity coordinators in place, which meant staff were responsible for arranging activities. We observed activities taking place, but they were not always catered to people’s individual preferences.

Although people told us they were offered choice, we did not see any evidence of how the provider had adapted activities to meet people’s varied needs. For example, there were no records to show which activities people had been offered or involved in. We also found there was no information on how additional support was provided to people with higher support needs, to ensure they were engaged in decisions about how they spent their time each day.

People and their relatives confirmed staff were responsive and sought appropriate support from healthcare professionals, when required. Comments included, “I am sure they would get a doctor and respond quickly” and “The clinical knowledge here on site and being able to tap in to it, makes all the difference.”

Staff we spoke with told us they knew people well and that if they came across a situation where they did not know what to do, they would seek out the management team immediately. They said that someone was always available, to ensure they were responsive to people’s needs.

During our first visit to the service, we found there was a possibility that people’s needs may not be met in a timely manner as not all call bells were working in people’s rooms. We raised our concerns with the manager following the first visit, who actioned this and ensured all call bells were in place at the time of our second visit.

Staff we spoke with said they now enjoyed working at Springfield Grange. They told us there have been significant improvements since the new manager commenced employment.

The new manager had implemented systems and processes to ensure staff received appropriate and ongoing support. However, further time was required to ensure this was embedded into practice.