Archived: Springfield Park

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the regulations we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we have found.

Is the service safe?

The provider had effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

We saw risk assessments had been completed for people who were assessed as being at risk of falls.

We saw people were safe and protected from abuse.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. No applications have needed to be submitted at the service. We saw policies and procedures were in place and all staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and DoLS.

Is the service effective?

People were treated with respect and dignity. People who used the service were asked about the support they received and if they understood their rights. They were given the information they needed to make an informed decision about their care. One person said, 'The girls (staff) always ask my permission before they help me'.

Is the service caring?

People's preferences, interests and needs were recorded and staff were able to give

examples of these when we spoke to them.

People's health and care needs were assessed with and they were involved in this process.

People we spoke with were positive about the care they received from the service.

Comments included, "They could not be better here' and 'I have no complaints. I am looked after very well'.

Is the service responsive?

There was an effective system in place to record and monitor complaints. Complaints were taken seriously and responded to appropriately.

We saw evidence that care staff identified changes in people's needs and acted to make sure they received the care they needed. For example, there was evidence that where one person's health had declined an immediate referral was made to the correct medical professional for advice and support.

Is the service well led?

The staff we spoke with were all aware of the complaints, safeguarding and whistle

blowing procedures. Staff told us they would immediately report any concerns they had about poor practice and were confident these would be addressed.

The service had a quality assurance system in place that included the use of surveys from people who used the service.

We found people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans.

We found that there were infection control systems in place and these were adhered to.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. One staff member said, 'We've had loads of different courses, they've been really useful.'

We found that people's complaints were fully investigated and resolved, where possible, to their satisfaction.

We found people were involved in decisions about their care whenever possible and their privacy and dignity was respected.

We found people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans.

As a result of our findings on the day we included a review of cleanliness and infection control. We concluded that people were not being cared for in a clean, hygienic environment and systems were not in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

Although a system was in place for staff appraisal and supervision some training needs for staff were still not being met.

There was no effective complaints recording system available. Complaints people made were not documented or responded to appropriately or in line with the organisation's complaints procedure.