Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Silversprings

Goodpublished 22 April 2026, 5 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2022

Silversprings was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements but some problems with PPE use and cleaning practices.

This was a targeted, announced inspection on 26 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Inspectors were assured that visitors were protected, people were admitted safely, testing was available and infection outbreaks could be managed. The home had enough staff and PPE, and people could keep in touch with family and friends through safe visiting arrangements.

There were some shortfalls. Staff did not always wear masks correctly or follow good hand hygiene. Cleaning checks had not identified toilet brushes soaking in fluid and mop heads not drying properly. The overall service and safe-care ratings were recorded as inspected but not rated.

What inspectors praised
  • Family visits

    People were supported to stay in contact with family and friends. The home had visible visiting arrangements and information for visitors.

    “People told us they were supported to maintain contact with family and friends.” from the report
  • Staffing and outbreak planning

    The home was fully staffed and had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures and possible infection outbreaks.

    “The service was fully staffed and able to manage future coronavirus and other infection outbreaks, and winter pressures.” from the report
  • PPE supplies

    The home had a good supply of PPE, and staff said they felt supported by the management team.

    “The registered manager had maintained a good stock of PPE and staff told us they felt supported by the management team.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • PPE and hand hygiene

    needs fixing

    Staff had received PPE training, but inspectors saw masks worn incorrectly and examples of poor hand hygiene practice.

    “Staff had received training in PPE; however, we observed they were not always ensuring their masks were fitted correctly over their nose and observing good hand hygiene.” from the report
  • Cleaning practices

    needs fixing

    Routine audits had missed toilet brushes soaking in fluid and mop heads not drying properly. Inspectors said this could allow bacteria to grow and spread infection.

    “Monthly audits had not picked up toilet brushes soaking in fluid” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes were made after inspectors found that some staff were not wearing masks correctly or following good hand hygiene?
  2. 02How do you now check that toilet brushes are stored safely and that mop heads dry fully?
  3. 03How often are infection-control audits completed, and who reviews the results?
  4. 04How do you manage visiting arrangements and tell families what to expect if there is an infection outbreak?
  5. 05How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient during COVID-19 or other infection pressures?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, May 2019

Silversprings was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and some improvements, but concerns about dementia support, staffing at busy times and quality checks.

Inspectors visited without warning on 8 and 9 April 2019. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, training, medicines, recruitment records, complaints, incidents and quality records.

The home provided residential and nursing care for up to 64 people, including people living with dementia. At the inspection, 52 people were living there. All five areas were rated Requires Improvement: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.

Some systems had improved since earlier inspections. Medicines, infection control, safeguarding and access to health professionals were generally managed well. However, staff did not always have the skills or time to provide good dementia care, particularly during mealtimes.

The rating stayed at Requires Improvement. The home had received this rating at its previous three inspections, and inspectors said further improvements were needed in governance, staff training, dementia care and staff deployment.

What inspectors praised
  • Medicines

    Medicines, including controlled drugs, were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff were trained and checked as competent.

    “People's prescribed medicines, including controlled drugs were stored, administered and disposed of safely and in accordance with relevant best practice guidance.” from the report
  • Safeguarding

    Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. The manager had dealt with safeguarding concerns appropriately.

    “Where safeguarding concerns had been raised, they had managed such incidents well.” from the report
  • Clean environment

    The home was clean and well maintained, with systems to reduce infection risks. Fire safety checks and evacuation plans were also in place.

    “The environment was clean; with no underlying unpleasant odours.” from the report
  • Health support

    People were referred to health professionals when needed. Records showed access to dietitians, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists and specialist nurses.

    “Records showed that people had access to various healthcare professionals such as dietician, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists, specialist nurses and diabetic clinics.” from the report
  • Involvement

    People, relatives and staff were involved in giving feedback and shaping the service. Complaints were investigated and answered within the expected timescale.

    “These had been investigated and responded to appropriately within the expected timeframe and used to improve the service.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Staffing at busy times

    serious

    Although enough staff were employed overall, staffing was not arranged well enough at key times, particularly on Tenpenny unit. This affected people's support and safety.

    “Although, there was adequate staff employed, the management team were not deploying staff effectively across the service to ensure people's needs were met at key times throughout the day.” from the report
  • Dementia care

    serious

    Staff lacked confidence and knowledge in supporting people with dementia and high anxiety. Training had started, but inspectors did not see its learning consistently reflected in practice.

    “Therefore, staff were not always providing care that was effective and person centred.” from the report
  • Mealtimes

    serious

    Mealtimes on Tenpenny unit were chaotic and stressful. Staff did not always have enough time to support people who needed help to eat, creating risks around nutrition and choking.

    “People with advanced dementia were not sufficiently supported at mealtimes to ensure they ate enough and were protected from malnutrition, and risk of choking.” from the report
  • Privacy and dignity

    needs fixing

    Staff discussed people's care needs in communal areas. Inspectors also found an example of bedding that had been soiled for several days.

    “Staff had failed to recognise this did not respect people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
  • Care planning

    needs fixing

    Care records did not give enough guidance about wellbeing, complex needs and meaningful activities. End of life plans generally contained little information about people's preferences.

    “Care records did not contain enough information for staff around supporting people's wellbeing or complex, long term specific needs, such as dementia.” from the report
  • Consent decisions

    serious

    There were inconsistencies in recording best interest decisions. Some decisions about disguised medicines lacked evidence that other options had been tried, and some were made for people who had capacity to decide.

    “Best interest decisions had been made for people who had the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What staffing arrangements are now used on Tenpenny unit during mealtimes and other busy periods?
  2. 02How do you check that people with advanced dementia eat and drink enough and are protected from choking?
  3. 03What dementia training has each member of staff completed, and how do managers check that it changes day-to-day care?
  4. 04How are people's life stories, interests and wellbeing now used to plan activities and social support?
  5. 05How are consent and best interest decisions recorded, including decisions about medicines being disguised in food?

This was an unannounced inspection brought forward because of concerns about people's care and welfare, and it assessed the overall service across all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Silversprings

6 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Silversprings →

  2. May 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Silversprings →

  3. November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. May 2017Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. November 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. December 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. September 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. March 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. April 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. September 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. May 2012

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 May 2012.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex

These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.

Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.

“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
Liz L., about Sithembiso N.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
Robert G., about Nechelle F.
See live-in carers near EssexProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.