We carried out a review of the data available to us about Springfield on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Springfield, you can give feedback on this service.
Springfield is a care home providing care for up to three people. On the day of our visit two people lived at the service. Each had their own self-contained flats. The service provides support to people who have a learning disability and some who may challenge the service.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
We met and spoke to both people during our visit. However, people who lived at Springfield had some communication difficulties due to their learning disability and associated conditions, such as autism. Therefore, they were not able to tell us verbally about all their experience of living there and we spent very short periods of time with people. Staff informed us how people spent their day.
People’s relatives said they felt their loved ones were safe with the staff supporting them. However, there were some issues raised about the wellbeing of one person and the lack of activities they were involved with. After the inspection we received information that measures had been put in place to resolve these issues. Systems were in place to safeguard people. Risks to them were identified and managed.
People received their medicines safely in the way prescribed for them. Infection control measures were in place to prevent cross infection. Staff were suitably recruited. Staffing levels were flexible to enable the service to provide a bespoke service to people to meet their needs.
People were supported by staff who completed an induction, training and were supervised. The support required by people with health and nutritional needs was identified and provided.
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; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Relatives felt the staff were kind and caring. People’s privacy and independence were promoted.
Systems were in place to deal with concerns and complaints. People where supported by staff to complete monthly satisfaction questionnaire. The questionnaire was available in a easy read format and held information for people to raise a complaint.
People’s computerised care records were detailed and personalised to meet individual needs. Staff understood people’s needs and responded when needed. People were not able to be fully involved with their support plans, therefore family members or advocates supported staff to complete and review people’s support plans. People’s preferences were sought and respected.
People had staff support to access activities and holidays. This was flexible and provided in response to people’s choices.
People’s communication needs were known by staff. Staff had received training in how to support people with different communication needs.
Staff and a relative were positive about the management of the service. Staff told us senior management and the registered manager were very approachable and always available for advice and support. However, we received feedback from professionals and relatives on the frequent changes of managers and staff team which they felt did not help with continuity.
Records were accessible and up to date. The service was audited, and action taken to address any areas identified that needed improving. Staff were committed to providing good outcomes for people.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (Published 5 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Springfield House provides accommodation for up to three people with a learning disability and complex needs. The service uses three individual flats with a shared garden and patio. There were two people living at the service at the time of our inspection.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
People who lived at Springfield House had very limited communication skills, meaning we were unable to gain people’s verbal views on the service. We observed staff interactions and spoke with one person who lived there. We observed that people were relaxed, engaged in their own choice of activities and appeared to be happy and well supported by the service. We also spoke with people’s relatives and staff to understand their experiences.
There was a positive atmosphere within the service and it was noticeable that staff and management put people at the centre of the service. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in the planning of care. Senior management, staff and relatives regularly discussed how to best support people living at the service. There were regular feedback opportunities for people to give their thoughts on how the service was working. This enabled people and their relatives to comment on the service independently. We saw evidence that this was mainly done through email.
Comprehensive quality assurance processes were regularly undertaken to ensure management were aware of how the service was operating, and were able to implement changes to keep the quality of the service high.
People had regular routine access to visiting health and social care professionals where necessary. People attended an annual health check with a GP and had access to specialist medical services to ensure their health needs were met. Professionals told us there was appropriate communication between the service and medical services. We saw clear guidance for staff about how they were to meet people’s needs so that they worked in collaboration. Staff responded to people’s changing health needs and sought the appropriate guidance or care from healthcare professionals when required.
Medicines were managed safely to ensure people received them in accordance with their health needs and the prescriber’s instructions.
Staff had a positive approach to keeping people safe and there was commitment to managing the changing risks in the service. Staff had developed their skills and understanding to appropriately support people when they became stressed or anxious. There were enough staff to keep people safe and properly supported to do the things they enjoyed, such as running and coastal walks.
People’s safety risks were identified, managed and reviewed and staff understood how to keep people safe.
Staff identified and reported any concerns relating to a person’s safety and welfare. The registered manager had a system to respond to all concerns or complaints appropriately.
Rigorous recruitment procedures were used to make sure new staff were safe and competent to work with people at the service. Staff were trained to provide the support individuals needed. A comprehensive system of induction and training was in place. Staff said the training was thorough and gave them confidence to carry out their role effectively. The staff team were supportive of each other and worked together to support people.
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff demonstrated they had an excellent knowledge of the people they supported and were able to appropriately support people without limiting their independence. Staff consistently spent time speaking with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to and interacting with staff. One staff member said, “I very much enjoy working here. I think it is a great staff group who are very committed to helping people live meaningful adult lives.”
Relatives of people who used the service had mixed views about how the service was managed. One relative told us, “I’ve been very impressed with the current manager, though I have been less impressed with a previous manager because of the way a complaint was dealt with.”
Professionals told us the service were open to ideas, communicated effectively and provided a safe and caring environment for the people who lived there. Comments included, “Even when I have raised a potential issue with management I have found them very professional and open to our suggestions and ideas. It’s an excellent service” and “The team always demonstrate an open minded approach to supporting individuals whose behaviours can be challenging to support, and are open to sharing creative ideas within the multi-disciplinary team.”
Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions, the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. 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