Springfield Grange

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

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. Systems for auditing the safety and quality in the service were in place but were not always effective in addressing areas for improvement. There was an open culture that was promoted in the home, where staff were able to speak out and share their concerns. Staff told us they felt listened to and able to speak up. The provider supported staff to have flexible working arrangements when needed and staff were able to work additional hours when they wished. Staff understood the importance of collaborative working with partners, to ensure people’s care was joined up. However, people’s records did not always reflect this.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us the culture of the organisation focused on the needs of people. For example, 1 staff member said, “The staff focus on the residents, and how we can keep improving, we are all pushing in the same direction now.” The registered manager also told us, "We do have visions and values in place. We want to ensure everyone is comfortable and safe. We want to make people's lives as fulfilled as possible.” Staff told us the manager was fair and approachable. Feedback included, “I have felt more supported in the 3 weeks I have been at Springfield Grange than in the 2 years I spent working for [name of service].”

Processes were in place to ensure the vision of the home was shared by the manager with the staff team. It was clear that the manager wanted to make changes and drive the staff team to work with them to do this. There was an open culture that was promoted in the home where staff were able to speak out and share their concerns. However, despite receiving positive feedback from staff and the manager, we found evidence that people's care was not always provided in a person centred way.

Staff told us the manager took overall responsibility for the oversight of the service and was supported by the wider management team. Staff spoke positively of the support they received from the new manager and told us they found the manager to be empathetic and compassionate when they shared concerns.

When the manager commenced employment, they completed audits and put action plans in place. This included an audit of recruitment documentation where they found gaps. New recruitment processes were therefore put in place, to ensure adequate checks were undertaken to assure the provider that staff recruitment was safe. The manager told us they had also held supervisions with staff and planned future supervisions and appraisals, as this had not taken place regularly in the past. Although steps were being taken to address issues that had been identified, further work was required to embed this into practice.

Staff told us they felt listened to and able to speak up. They told us they felt confident action would be taken when they did speak up. Comments included, "Suggestions are listened to. The manager would absolutely feedback to me" and "I would definitely raise issues if I had any. The office door is always open." Another staff member told us they had raised a suggestion for improving the service and it was implemented and working well.

Processes were in place to ensure staff felt able to speak up. For example, the provider had a safeguarding and whistleblowing policy that staff understood and encouraged them to speak up. There was an open-door policy in place, where staff could approach the manager with any concerns if they wished. There was also opportunity for staff to share ideas in team meetings, supervisions, handovers and daily flash meetings.

Staff told us they were treated fairly and equally by the management team. A staff member told us, "The manager is fair and approachable."

The provider supported staff to have flexible working arrangements when needed and staff were able to work additional hours when they wished. Most staff were compliant with equality and diversity training.

The manager told us they had systems in place to learn from events. They told us where accidents and incidents occurred, staff were required to complete accident forms. Any learning was then shared with staff to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Staff told us they felt comfortable with tasks that had been delegated and felt that they had received sufficient training to undertake what was asked of them. The manager had taken responsibility to action outstanding environmental issues that needed addressing, such as ensuring there was a deep clean of the kitchen. However, not all issues had been completed in a timely manner. For example, the manager had requested a fence to be erected along the perimeter of the property, to ensure people were safe from a ditch that was in the grounds, but this had not yet been completed and placed people at risk.

Systems for auditing the safety and quality in the service were in place but were not always effective in addressing areas for improvement. For example, management and staff knew people’s care records did not always accurately reflect their needs and circumstances. However, action had not been taken in a timely manner to address this. People’s daily notes were also not being audited, which meant the manager lacked oversight into the effectiveness of people’s care and support. This meant there could be a missed opportunity to ensure people received appropriate care and support, to meet their needs.

People we spoke with and observed had received input from partners including speech and language therapists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and GP's.

The manager gave examples of where the home worked in partnership with the local safeguarding team and other partners, including oral health and medicines teams, to improve care for people living at the home. Staff understood the importance of collaborative working with partners, to ensure people’s care was joined up. However, people’s records did not always contain adequate guidance from professionals for staff to support people safely. For example, where people had assessed needs with nutrition and hydration, staff did not always have clear guidelines in place to follow. We also found conflicting information between speech and language assessments, care plans and risk assessments regarding people’s eating and drinking needs. This was raised with the manager who immediately contacted the speech and language team to clarify people’s needs.

There was evidence of a range of partners working alongside the provider to improve outcomes for people.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure the service worked with partners and the local community. However, further work was required to ensure improvements that had been identified by partner agencies were embedded into practice.

Staff members told us they were keen to learn, but the manager acknowledged there was further work required. The manager was trying to promote and implement a culture of learning and improving. They told us that they say to staff, " Hold your hands up and let's all learn from any mistakes, do not to be afraid to say if something has gone wrong as we can all learn from it."

Systems were in place to ensure learning and improvement took place, but these were yet to be fully established. The provider and manager had recently undertaken audits across the service and developed an action plan, which showed gaps in care planning, risk assessments and fire safety. We found the manager was proactive in taking action to implement and embed learning and practice. The manager worked openly with us during this assessment and acknowledged there were still areas for improvement within the service.