CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Spring House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found risks were reviewed, there were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were safely managed. Infection prevention measures, including PPE, cleaning and visiting arrangements, were also found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission and reviewed regularly. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with food and drink, and consent and best-interest decisions were handled in line with legal guidance.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were offered choices, involved in care planning where possible, and supported with their privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's histories, preferences and signs of distress. Activities, communication support, complaints handling and end-of-life plans were tailored to people's individual needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management was described as approachable and supportive. The provider had quality checks, action plans, staff meetings and systems for learning from feedback and incidents.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Spring House Residential Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some dementia signage still inconsistent.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 and 30 November 2021. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience reviewed records, observed care, spoke with people and staff, and gathered views from relatives and professionals.
The inspectors found all five areas were Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough staff, safe recruitment, well-managed risks and medicines, suitable infection control, and a clean environment.
People received care tailored to their needs and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Relatives said people were safe and that staff were caring. The home supported choice, involved families in care planning and had systems to learn from concerns and improve care.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection published in September 2018. Improvements had been made after earlier recommendations about mental capacity records and guidance for supporting people in distress.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with safe recruitment and regularly reviewed risk assessments.
“There were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient and attentive. People were supported with dignity, privacy and day-to-day choices.
“People were supported by kind and attentive staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's life histories, preferences, communication needs and early signs of distress. Activities were also planned around individual interests.
“People's care plans were individualised and included their life history, preferences and early warning signs they may be distressed.” from the report
Improved legal decision-making
The home had improved how it recorded mental capacity decisions and best-interest decisions after the previous inspection's recommendation.
“The provider had made improvements.” from the report
Open management and improvement
Staff and relatives described management as approachable. The home used quality checks, feedback and staff meetings to identify improvements.
“The provider had a robust system of quality assurance to check the quality of the service and to drive improvements.” from the report
Dementia-friendly signs were inconsistent
minorThe home had considered dementia-friendly design and signs, but this was not consistent throughout the building. Inspectors fed this back to management.
“Consideration had been given to a dementia friendly environment and signage, but this was inconsistent throughout the service.” from the report
Further improvements were planned for meal choices
minorThe home planned to use visual aids to support people's decisions about meals. The report does not say this had already been completed.
“The deputy manager told us there were plans to improve and support people's decision-making regarding meals.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make dementia-friendly signs consistent throughout the home?
- 02Have the planned visual aids for meal choices now been introduced?
- 03How will you keep us involved in care planning and reviews for our relative?
- 04How do you check that staff continue to follow each person's guidance when they become distressed?
- 05What improvements have been made since this November 2021 inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC areas, including infection prevention and control measures under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 December 2021 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.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found major improvements in safe, kind and responsive care, but some decision-making and behaviour guidance records were incomplete.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over 19 and 20 July 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care, medicines and lunch, and checked care plans, staff records, rotas, medicines and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines practice, improved care plans, better activities, clean premises and kind interactions. People were supported with food, drinks and health needs.
This was a substantial improvement from February 2018, when Safe was Inadequate and the other areas were mostly Requires Improvement. The provider had acted on the earlier legal breaches, and inspectors found those requirements had been met.
Some work was still needed. Records did not always show the required mental capacity and best-interest decisions. Some care plans did not give staff enough detail about how to support people who became distressed. Inspectors made recommendations about both issues.
Enough staff
Staffing levels had increased since the previous inspection and were maintained. Inspectors saw that staff were available and were not rushed when responding to people's needs.
“During this inspection, we observed the atmosphere in the home was calm and staff were not rushed when responding to people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw caring interactions and found that privacy, dignity and personal choices were respected.
“We saw examples of positive, caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Improved activities
The home had developed a more regular activities programme, based on people's interests and wishes. Inspectors saw people enjoying music, gardening and other activities.
“At the last inspection we recommended the provider research good practice around meaningful activities for people living with dementia.” from the report
Cleaner environment
The home was clean, maintained and free from unpleasant odours. Laundry and cleaning arrangements had improved since the previous inspection.
“We found the home was clean, well- maintained and free from odour.” from the report
Incomplete capacity records
needs fixingNot every care plan recorded mental capacity assessments or best-interest decisions. This included decisions about falls sensors and CCTV, which could restrict a person's freedom.
“Not all care plans contained capacity assessments or records of best interest's decisions having taken place.” from the report
Limited guidance during distress
needs fixingSome care plans told staff to use distraction or de-escalation but did not explain clearly what techniques to use. Inspectors recommended further work on this guidance.
“The guide instructed staff to attempt distraction techniques but there were no clear details as to what these were.” from the report
Gloves briefly stored in communal areas
minorBoxes of plastic gloves in communal areas posed a risk of ingestion. The manager moved them to a locked laundry room when inspectors raised the issue.
“We noted there were several boxes of plastic gloves placed in communal areas around the home; which posed a risk of ingestion.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every resident has the correct mental capacity and best-interest records for restrictions such as falls sensors and CCTV?
- 02What exact steps should staff take when a resident becomes anxious, distressed or shows behaviour that could cause harm?
- 03How do you monitor that the improved staffing levels are maintained on every shift, including when staff are absent?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or behaviour changes?
- 05What follow-up has taken place on the previous local authority improvement plan?
This was an unannounced inspection carried out over two days to check earlier legal requirements and comprehensively assess all five areas of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 2018 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.
Every inspection of Spring House Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Spring House Residential Care Home →
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Spring House Residential Care Home →
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 September 2015.
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.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.