Archived: Springfield House

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 5 February 2016. We carried out this inspection to follow up on our inspection on 2 June 2015 where we found the provider was in breach of some of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Following that inspection we received an action plan from the provider informing us of the actions they planned to take in response to our inspection.

The home had a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager assisted us with our inspection on the day.

Staff followed correct and appropriate procedures in administering medicines and medicines were stored safely and appropriately.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff followed the correct procedures for people who did not have capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Care was provided to people by staff who were trained and received relevant support from their manager. This included regular supervisions and undertaking training specific to their role.

Care plans were individualised and contained information to guide staff on how someone wished to be cared for. Information included detail around people’s mobility, food and personal care needs. Where people had risks identified guidance was in place for staff to help reduce these risks.

Quality assurance checks carried out by staff to help ensure the environment was a safe place for people to live and they received a good quality of care. Staff were involved in the running of the home as regular staff meetings were held. People were asked for their views about all aspects of their care and could make their own decisions.

There was a good atmosphere in the home where people and staff interacted in an easy-going manner. People and relatives were happy with the care provided and they were made to feel welcome when they visited.

There were a sufficient number of staff to care for people. Staff supported people to take part in various activities and treated people with respect and dignity.

Safe recruitment practices were followed, which meant the provider endeavoured to employ staff who were suitable to work in the home. Staff were able to evidence to us they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns about abuse or someone being harmed.

People had care responsive to their needs. People were provided with a choice of meals each day and those who had dietary requirements received appropriate food to ensure they were not at risk of choking.

Staff maintained people’s health and ensured good access to healthcare professionals when needed. For example, the doctor, optician or district nurse.

Complaint procedures were available to people and there was a contingency plan in place should the home have to be evacuated.

There was an open positive culture within the home and it was evident the registered manager had good management oversight and was respected by staff.

We found the provider had taken all necessary action to ensure they were meeting the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We found that staff had received updated training in the MCA and had an understanding of what this meant in relation to gaining consent.

We saw that there were hand washing signs in each bathroom around the service. Areas of the service had been cleaned since our last inspection and there was a system that recorded what areas had been cleaned and what had not.

The training schedule we saw showed that staff were mostly up to date with the mandatory training which included fire safety and infection control. We found that there was a schedule around staff appraisals and that this was on-going. We also found that most of the clinical staff had received one to one supervision with their manager and that other staff supervision had been booked.

All of the people we spoke with told us that staff gained consent from them before any care was given. One person told us 'They (staff) wouldn't do anything without checking with me first.' We saw documents that confirmed that the service gained consent from people. These related to people's care plan and 'End of Life' care plan. However we found that staff were not aware of guidance around people's capacity to make decisions.

We saw that people were supported with their nutrition and hydration needs. People told us that they liked the food at the service. One person told us 'The food is delicious.' Staff told us that they understood the need to record what people ate and drank throughout the day.

Although the service was mostly clean and tidy there were areas around the home where there were concerns around infection controls. The service did not have monitoring systems that identified what areas had been cleaned. The service did have an up to date infection control policy. One person told us 'Oh yes its clean here.'

All of the staff that we spoke with told us that they felt supported by their manager and by their colleagues. However we found that one to one supervisions were not up to date and there were no up to date appraisals for staff. We also found that staffs mandatory training was not up to date.

We saw that the service had an effective complaints system. People we spoke with told us that if they felt they needed to complain they would not have any problems doing so. Staff told us that they supported people if they wanted to make a complaint.

We found on this inspection that all staff had received up to date safeguarding awareness training and criminal record checks had been undertaken for all staff.