Archived: Springhill Care Home

Updated 8 June 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. This inspection was planned to check 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 an inspector, an assistant inspector, a specialist advisor (nurse) and two Experts by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type:

The service 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 service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means they and the provider are 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 from the provider since the last inspection, such as details of serious injuries. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We contacted Healthwatch Lancashire for feedback about the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). 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 spoke with 15 people who lived at the home and seven visiting relatives and friends about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with two nurses, one assistant practitioner, five care workers, the registered manager, deputy manager, a number of senior managers and the nominated individual, The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. We also spoke with a healthcare professional who visited the home regularly.

We reviewed a range of records. This included four people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at a variety of records relating to the management of the service and a selection of policies and procedures developed and implemented by the provider.

After the inspection we contacted three community healthcare professionals for their views about the service.

Updated 8 June 2019

About the service:

Springhill Care Home is a nursing and residential care home which provides nursing and personal care to up to 116 people. The home has a nursing unit, a residential unit and a separate three floor unit for people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, 109 people were living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service:

People using the service and their relatives were happy with the care and support provided at Springhill Care Home.

The provider followed safe processes when recruiting staff to ensure they were suitable to support adults at risk. Staff understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse or avoidable harm. The service managed people’s risks and medicines in a safe way. Staff followed appropriate infection control procedures and we found the home clean. The provider ensured safety checks of the home environment were completed regularly. Most people told us they were happy with staffing levels at the home. However, some people told us staff were not always available when they needed support, especially in the morning. We discussed this with the registered manager and the provider and shortly after our inspection the provider increased staffing levels to ensure staff were able to support people when they needed it.

Staff supported people in a way which met their needs. People felt staff had the knowledge and skills to support them well. Staff were happy with the induction they received when they joined the service and their training was updated regularly. Staff completed mental capacity assessments in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and consulted people’s relatives when people were unable to make decisions about their care. When people needed to be deprived of their liberty to keep them safe, the service applied to the local authority for authorisation to do this. The service had a strong focus on supporting people to eat and drink well. Staff supported people to achieve and maintain good health and referred people to community professionals when they needed extra support.

People liked the staff who supported them. They told us staff were kind and treated them with respect. Staff considered people’s diversity and provided people with any support they needed with their communication needs. Staff respected people’s right to privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be independent when it was safe to do so. People told us staff had discussed their care needs with them and they were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided people with information about local advocacy services, to ensure they received support to express their views if they needed to.

Staff provided people with care that reflected their needs and preferences. Staff created personalised care plans, which they updated when people’s needs or risks changed. Staff were familiar with people’s needs and how they liked to be supported. Staff offered people choices and encouraged them to make decisions about their care when they could. No formal complaints had been received by the service. Three people told us they had raised concerns with staff about delays in providing them with support, but no improvements had been made. The provider and registered manager told us this had not been raised with them prior to the inspection, or in recent satisfaction surveys or during residents' meetings. The provider took action when we raised these concerns with them.

The registered manager, management team and provider were passionate about providing people with high quality, person-centred care. They worked hard to keep up to date with good practice, which enhanced the care people received, resulting in better outcomes for people living at the home. Community professionals gave us very positive feedback about the management of the home and the quality of the care staff provided. The home had achieved the platinum Investors in People award, which is currently held by only 1% of IIP accredited organisations. People, relatives and staff were happy with how the service was being managed. Staff felt well supported by the management team and told us they would be happy for a family member to live at the home.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good (published 21 October 2016).

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.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.