Springfield House

Updated 13 November 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Springfield House 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.

The provider was registered with the Care Quality Commission as a provider/manager. The provider is legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We met with three of the four people who used the service and spoke with a visitor about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with three members of staff including the provider. Not everyone in the service could communicate with us verbally and we spent time observing their reactions. We spoke briefly with one person.

We reviewed a range of records. This included all four care records and the medication records. We looked at one staff file in relation to recruitment. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We held further discussions with both health and social care professionals to clarify some information gathered on the day of the inspection. We also received updated information from the provider related to 'best interest' decision making.

Updated 13 November 2019

Springfield House is a residential care home for up to 4 people living with a learning disability, some of whom may be older people. The home is run by a family with Margaret Blair being the provider/ manager.

The home is a farm house that has been extended and adapted to provide accommodation for up to four people living with a learning disability. The home is in a rural setting, with a large garden. The provider's family also live in the property and the lounge, kitchen and dining area are shared by people in the home and the family. People have single bedrooms. The home does not provide nursing care.

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

People in the home found it difficult to express themselves verbally but we observed them to be relaxed and comfortable in the house.

Three members of the family make up the staff team. They employed bank staff who covered when the family members are not in the home. Staff had received suitable training about protecting vulnerable adults. Good arrangements were in place to ensure that new members of staff had been suitably vetted and were the right kind of people to work with vulnerable adults.

Staff were appropriately inducted, trained and developed to give the best support possible. Team members understood people's needs very well and were experience in their roles. The staff team was suitable to meet people's needs.

People saw their GP and health specialists when necessary. Medicines were reviewed on a regular basis. Staff took the advice of nurses and consultants. The staff team had good working relationships with local GP surgeries. Nutritional planning was in place and special diets catered for appropriately.

The house was warm, clean and comfortable on the day we visited. The home had equipment in place to support care delivery.

The staff team were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). 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.

We observed kind and patient support being provided. Staff supported people in a respectful way. They made sure confidentiality, privacy and dignity were maintained.

Risk assessments and care plans provided detailed guidance. People in the service or their relatives, as appropriate, had influenced the content. The provider ensured the plans reflected the person-centred care that was being delivered.

Staff could access specialists if people needed communication tools like sign language or braille.

Every person had weekly activities planned and, for the most part, people went out together. One person attended a day centre. The home encouraged involvement in local activities. People had regular holidays in different parts of the UK.

The service had a quality monitoring system and people or their families were asked their views. Quality assurance was used to support future planning.

The provider understood how to manage concerns or complaints appropriately and there were suitable procedures in place.

Records were well organised, easy to access and stored securely.

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 3 May 2017).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.