Springfield Grange

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At our last inspection we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment, the provider had improved, and this key question is now rated requires improvement. We received consistently positive feedback about how well staff knew people’s needs. However, information was not available in alternative formats, to meet people’s individual communication needs and preferences. Although some people told us they were not involved in the planning and reviewing of their care, people told us they felt listened to. Processes were not always in place to ensure people’s end of life wishes were recorded.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received consistently positive feedback about how well staff knew people’s needs. However, we received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about their involvement in planning and reviewing their care. Some people spoke positively about the support they received. For example, a relative told us, “I did a pen profile for [relative], which was called all about me, and it was put in their care plan.”

Staff we spoke with knew what good person-centred care looked like and showed a commitment to providing this for the people using the service. However, people’s care records did not always reflect this approach. The manager was aware that people’s care plans needed further development, including involving people, their relatives and staff in the process. The manager told us of their plans to drive this improvement immediately.

We observed staff treat people with a fair and friendly approach. We saw some evidence of activities on offer for people, however they were not always tailored to meet people’s differing abilities.

We received positive feedback from people about the care they received and the improvements the new manager had begun to make in the service.

The manager told us how they worked with other professionals to ensure people have access to good care and support. This was being embedded into practice and good relationships were being formed.

Partner agencies had visited the service prior to our assessment and had raised concerns that they were working through with management.

People’s care records did not always contain input from professionals. For example, we saw evidence of conflicting and out of date information. We raised this with the manager, who acknowledged significant work was needed to address this.

People did not express any concerns with how the service provided them with information. However, we found there was no evidence in people’s care records that their communication needs, in line with the Accessible Information Standard, were being considered and met.

The manager understood the Accessible Information Standard and was aware that communication plans, adapted to meet people’s individual needs, were required.

Processes were not in place to ensure people’s communication needs were identified, recorded, and shared as required. We found information was not available in alternative formats, to meet people’s individual needs and preferences.

Although some people told us they were not involved in the planning and reviewing of their care, people told us they felt listened to. People told us they felt able to raise concerns should they need to. Resident and relative’s meetings had been held since the new manager had been in post. We were told by 1 relative, “There was a meeting to meet the new manager. They asked us to raise points. They made it clear their door is open.”

The provider told us they had held meetings with people and their relatives. They had also sought feedback via questionnaires, some had been returned at the time of the assessment and were positive regarding the changes and impact the new manager had made. The provider told us they also aimed to get feedback from relative’s when they visited the service.

The provider’s care planning and admission policies demonstrated how people and their relatives should be involved in their care planning. However, the records we reviewed did not demonstrate this was always done. For example, care plans did not record people's preferences.

People we spoke with did not report facing any barriers when accessing services. They felt they were treated fairly, and their human rights were respected. One person told us, “I can make my own choices and go backwards and forwards. I could go outside if I wanted.”

Staff and leaders knew to be aware of possible discrimination and equality that could disadvantage people’s access to care and treatment.

We did not receive any negative feedback from partners regarding people’s equity in access.

Processes were in place to ensure people were supported to experience equality in the care and support they received. However, they were not always effective. For example, information was not always readily available for people in a format they understood, and further work was required to ensure people’s choices and preferences were considered and promoted.

People we spoke with did not report any difficulties in accessing appropriate care and support. Feedback included, “Staff support me very well.”

Staff and leaders understood how discrimination and inequality could disadvantage different people living in the service.

The provider had an equality, diversity, and human rights policy in place to protect people and staff against discrimination. Staff had also undertaken equality and diversity training.

At the time of our assessment, we were not able to obtain feedback from anyone receiving end of life care.

Staff had received end of life training. The manager told us how they would support people approaching the end of their life. They said that they would work with the person and their relatives, to ensure they cared for and supported the person in line with their wishes. However, this was not always reflected in people’s care records.

Processes were not always in place to ensure people’s end of life wishes were recorded. For example, we found people did not always have end of life care plans in place. This meant staff did not have information about people’s choices and wishes for their end of life care. We raised this with the manager during our assessment, who agreed to take action.