Archived: Springfield Park

Updated 25 August 2018

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

This inspection took place on 16 July 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we would be visiting. An announced second day of inspection took place on 19 July 2018.

The inspection team was made up of one adult social care inspector and one senior health and safety advisor from the Commission who was shadowing the inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally required to let us know about. We used information in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We contacted the local authority commissioning team and the safeguarding adult’s team. We contacted the local Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

During the inspection we spent time with six people living at the service and two relatives. Due to people's needs not everyone could tell us about their experience so we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke with the deputy manager who was managing the home in the registered manager’s absence and the regional operations manager. We also spoke with four care staff, the activities coordinator, and four ancillary staff including maintenance, kitchen and housekeeping staff.

We reviewed six people’s care records, including two people who received respite care at Springfield Park. We looked at medicine records for six people and recruitment files for two staff. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service including training and supervision records. We also looked around the building and spent time in the communal areas.

Updated 25 August 2018

This inspection took place on 16 July 2018 and was unannounced. A second day of inspection took place on 19 July 2018 which was announced. We last inspected Springfield Park November 2015 and found it was meeting all the regulations we inspected against. We rated it good in all domains. During this inspection we found concerns in relation to some records and governance so have rated it requires improvement.

Springfield Park is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Springfield Park can accommodate 30 people in one adapted building across two floors. At the time of the inspection 20 people were resident, some of whom were living with a dementia.

The service had a registered manager who was on a planned absence at the time of the inspection. We had been notified of this and the deputy manager was managing the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This is the first time the service has been rated Requires Improvement. We found a breach of regulation in relation to good governance. Care records for people receiving respite care had either not been written or hadn’t been reviewed since October 2016. There was a failure to follow the providers own policy in relation to respite and short stay admissions. Respite care files had not been audited and the required improvements had not been identified. The deputy manager was responsive to our concerns and immediately took action to develop care plans.

Some care records also lacked detail in relation to the support people needed with regards to the provision of personal care and mobility.

Staff knew people well and we observed care and treatment was provided in a safe and responsive manner. The gaps in care records had not had any direct impact on people’s care. However, the provider is required to maintain accurate, complete and contemporaneous records in respect of each person’s care.

We have made a recommendation that the provider review best practice in relation to fire safety. A fire risk assessment had not been updated to evidence actions had been completed. We found some fire doors were closing at high speed. This was rectified after the inspection. Staff could explain how they would safely evacuate people in the event of a fire.

The environment was in need of an update and the deputy manager was able to offer reassurances that work was in progress to replace carpets and furniture and to improve the décor.

Risk assessments had been completed for all people permanently resident at Springfield Park. Any incidents or accidents were recorded and the information used to review and update risk assessments.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to safeguard people from harm and were confident the registered manager would act to resolve concerns and ensure people’s safety. All concerns were logged and investigated.

Medicines were managed safely and had recently been audited by the pharmacist. Regular medicine audits had been completed and if necessary action had been taken to ensure improvements were made.

People were supported with their nutrition and hydration needs and had access to healthcare professionals such as dieticians, speech and language therapy and GPs and consultants.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and recruitment procedures were in place.

Staff told us they had the required training to ensure they could meet people’s needs and that they were well supported by the deputy manager. The team worked well together and supported each other so people received care that was appropriate, timely and respectful.

People and their relatives were complimentary of the care they received and of the approach from the deputy manager. One relative said, “The care is fabulous!”

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place and were we identified gaps they had been completed by day two of the inspection.

Activities were provided for people and the staff were committed to fundraising so there was an increased budget for entertainers and events. Staff had personally given funds to the home so a small area at the front of the building could be updated to be a patio area for people to sit with their relatives.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.