Archived: Spring Gardens

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People received an assessment of their needs in order to identify any areas of risk in delivering their care. Individualised risk assessments and care plans were put in place to ensure people received care that met their needs. This included checking any risks relating to the delivery of care in people's own homes. The registered manager had made improvements to the service by introducing a new system of medicine administration records (MAR). Staff had received training and competency assessments to ensure they were able to administer medicines in a safe way. The provider had a recruitment system in place to ensure staff were of good character before they worked for the service.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they and their family members were involved in writing their plans of care. We saw that detailed personal care plans were in place which described people's care preferences and the support required to maintain their independence. People and their relatives told us that overall they were happy with the level of care provided. People also told us that the staff assisted them with taking their medicines at the right time every day. There was a system of staff training and supervision in place to ensure staff were sufficiently supported to do their jobs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. One person said 'I am extremely happy with the care, the carers are all nice and respectful'. A relative of a person who used the service said 'The staff are lovely, they all do a good job and are well presented'. Staff told us that the registered manager was a caring person, and they were expected to report any concerns they had to the manager to make sure people who used the service received good care.

Is the service responsive?

Staff had responded appropriately to a range of medical needs and we saw that medical professionals such as the G.P and district nurse were regularly involved in people's care. The provider had a safeguarding of vulnerable adults policy and procedure in place to ensure staff responded appropriately to any safeguarding concerns. People received a review of their plan of care every six months to make sure they were happy with how their care needs were being met. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's care needs and knew how to prevent health conditions such as pressure ulcerations.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system and this included a system to 'spot check' the quality of each person's care. People were asked for their feedback regarding the quality of service received. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

Staff stated that the registered manager expected high standards of care and would act on any concerns raised with them immediately. Staff told us that they were expected to deliver good care and to be polite and respectful to people who used services.

We spoke with two staff members who worked for the service. They both told us that they felt well supported in their roles. One staff member told us about how they had supported a person that used the service to enable them to become more independent.

We found that people's needs had been assessed and care and support plans had been put in place to ensure that that their needs were met. We found that people's care records where consistent with the care that was being provided. We saw that people's preferences where recorded.

We found that staff were receiving regular supervision and an annual appraisal. We saw that there was a staff newsletter produced to ensure that staff were kept up to date with information and that team meetings were being held bimonthly. We saw that the provider used a computer system to monitor and alert them when care documents and staff training needed to be reviewed. We saw that an audit had been introduced to enable the provider to assess the quality of the service.

We were concerned that there was not clear guidance for staff to follow to administer medication and that there were gaps on the medication administration records that staff completed.

People who were visiting their relatives who used the service told us "they always keep me informed" and "the staff are wonderful".

However, we found that the information held by the service about people was not always to date and consistent.