We carried out a review of the data available to us about Springfield Residential Home 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 Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Springfield is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 31 people in one adapted building at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 34 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
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.
The service provided safe care to people. People commented, “I feel really safe here, the staff look after me” and “It’s a lovely place, I feel content here.” A relative commented, “Springfield is not only a beautiful physical space with a lovely atmosphere, light and surroundings, but boasts a top-notch staff of efficient, well-trained and, above all, delightful men and women who have kept my mum amused, entertained and happier than she could have imagined a few months ago!”
People’s individual risks were identified, and risk assessment reviews were carried out to identify ways to keep people safe. Medicines were managed as necessary. Effective infection control measures were in place. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act were adhered to when necessary. Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the care and treatment which was right for them.
People confirmed that staffing arrangements met their needs. There were enough staff to support people and the staff worked well as a team. There were effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place.
Relatives spoke highly of the care and support their relatives received at Springfield Residential Home. Comments included, “I truly believe that my mother would not be here now if it was not for Springfield. The registered manager and her team got her on her feet again. Her quality of life has enormously improved” and “[Relative] has been at Springfield now for 11 years and I have been extremely grateful to [management team] and all the staff for the marvellous care they have given her.”
Staff spoke positively about communication and how the registered manager and management team worked well with them and encouraged their professional development.
A number of methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received. The service made continuous improvements in response to their findings.
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 12 September 2017).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service and length of time since the last inspection. We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Springfield Residential Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
At the last inspection in August 2015 the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated good:
The service continued to provide safe care to people. One person commented: “The staff keep us safe.” Measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible to protect people’s freedom. People’s rights were protected because the service followed the appropriate legal processes. Medicines were safely managed on people’s behalf.
Care files were personalised to reflect people’s personal preferences. Their views and suggestions were taken into account to improve the service. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet, which they enjoyed.
Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the care and treatment which was right for them.
There were effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place. People received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and competent.
The service was caring and people had built strong relationships with each other and staff. People engaged in a wide variety of activities and spent time in the local community going to specific places of interest.
Staff spoke positively about communication and how the registered manager worked well with them and encouraged their professional development.
A number of methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received and made continuous improvements in response to their findings.
This unannounced inspection took place on 19 August 2015. We returned on 24 August 2015 as arranged with the registered manager.
Springfield Residential Home is a care home providing personal care to a maximum of 34 older people who may also have a physical disability. At the time of our inspection there were 31 people receiving a service.
When we visited there was a registered manager in post. 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.
People felt safe and staff demonstrated a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report if concerns were raised. Measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible to protect people’s freedom. People’s rights were protected because the service followed the appropriate processes.
Care files were personalised to reflect people’s personal preferences. Their views and suggestions were taken into account to improve the service. They were supported to maintain a balanced diet. Health and social care professionals were regularly involved in people’s care to ensure they received the right care and treatment.
Staff relationships with people were strong, caring and supportive. Staff were motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and compassionate.
Staffing arrangements were flexible in order to meet people’s individual needs. Staff received a range of training and regular support to keep their skills up to date in order to support people appropriately. Staff spoke positively about communication and how the management team worked well with them, encouraged team working and an open culture.
A number of effective methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received.
This visit on 11 October 2013 was again to check whether the home was complying with the legal requirements set out in the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973, amended 2007.
We found that the controlled drugs cabinet was now secured to the wall in line with the legislation and the home was meeting its legal obligations. This meant that controlled drugs at the home were less open to mistakes or mishandling.
We undertook this unannounced inspection visit only to check that there was safe storage of controlled drugs. We did not therefore ask people about the service they received on this occasion.
We found that the home had purchased a cabinet for the storage of controlled drugs which they kept for people who used the service. However, the cabinet, although within a locked cupboard, was not fixed to the wall in line with the legislation. We found that it could be moved because the fix was not strong. This meant that the home still does not have appropriate arrangements for the safe keeping of controlled drugs.
Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and staff acted in accordance with their wishes.
People we spoke with who lived at the home said that their care and welfare needs were being well met. Comments included: 'It's the best home and I love living here', 'My needs are met', 'The home is always warm and comfortable', 'It is wonderful here' and 'Staff always ask before helping me.'
We saw the controlled drug box which was kept in one of the medicines cupboards. The controlled drug box was loose within the medicines cupboard. Neither the medicines cupboard nor controlled drugs box were attached securely in line with the requirements of the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973, amended 2007.
We observed that staff were well organised, motivated and competent in their roles.
People were made aware of the complaints system. This was provided in a format that met their needs. Comments included: 'I have no complaints' and 'There are no faults.'