CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springbank Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by safeguarding arrangements, risk assessments, staffing and infection control systems. Medicines were managed safely overall, but some records lacked important details.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training and support, people could access healthcare, and their needs and choices were assessed. Inspectors identified limited choice over portion sizes and less space in the dementia units as areas to consider.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had effective audits and monitoring systems, good oversight and a commitment to improvement. People, relatives and staff said the service was well led and that their views were listened to.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Springbank Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with some medicines records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 3 November 2022. Inspectors spoke with six people, six relatives and seven staff. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable safeguarding arrangements, managed risks and good infection control. People were supported with food, healthcare, choices and their day-to-day routines.
There were some areas to improve. Medicines records did not always include all the information needed to show medicines had been given safely. Inspectors also discussed giving people more choice over portion sizes and improving space in the dementia units.
The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection published on 3 January 2019. The Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Enough staff
Staffing levels were reviewed in response to people's needs. Night-time staffing had been increased so staff were available when needed.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“Everybody we spoke with said they, or their relative, felt safe.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff worked with health professionals and acted when people's health changed. Care records showed advice from professionals was followed.
“People were supported to access healthcare when they needed this help.” from the report
Strong management oversight
Audits and monitoring were in place, and records showed that identified issues were addressed. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team.
“Effective governance, audits and monitoring systems were in place.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome records did not show all the information needed to confirm medicines had been given safely. Inspectors recommended that the provider review its recording process.
“Records about medicines did not always contain enough information to show medicines had been given safely.” from the report
Choice over portions
minorMeals were served already plated, so people could not choose their portion size. Inspectors also heard that one person did not want to ask for a different meal.
“this way of serving meant people did not have choice over portion sizes.” from the report
Dementia unit space
minorInspectors noted that the units for people living with dementia did not provide the same amount of space as the residential care units. Managers were open to considering how this could be addressed.
“the units for people living with dementia didn't provide the same space as the residential care units.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicines recording since inspectors found that some records lacked details such as application sites and administration times?
- 02How can residents choose their portion sizes or request a different meal if they do not enjoy the food served?
- 03Are there plans to provide more space in the units for people living with dementia?
- 04How are staffing levels reviewed, particularly at night, when residents' needs change?
- 05What are the current ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 January 2023 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, January 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but the home Requires Improvement for safety.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 and 27 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, training records and management checks. They also observed meals, activities and staff interactions.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, good food and effective links with health professionals.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Medicines were generally managed safely, but records for creams were not always completed at the time of application. Some risk assessments, incident records and care plan reviews also needed more detail.
Kind and respectful care
People, relatives and health professionals consistently described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors also observed friendly, compassionate interactions and good relationships between people and staff.
“People and relatives consistently said staff were kind and caring and treated them well.” from the report
Person-centred support
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and needs. People were asked about daily choices such as food, activities and where they wanted to sit.
“People were asked throughout the day what they wanted to do, where they wanted to sit and what food they wanted to eat.” from the report
Activities and social life
The home offered games, quizzes, arts and crafts, reminiscence, reading, sensory activities and one-to-one support. Activities were adapted so people were included, including people living with dementia.
“There was a very good range of activities and social opportunities available to people with the home.” from the report
Good management oversight
Managers carried out audits and checks covering areas such as medicines, incidents, care planning and the environment. Feedback from people and relatives was gathered and acted on.
“The registered manager had good oversight of the service.” from the report
Topical medicine records
seriousRecords for creams were not always completed at the time they were applied. Some as-required medicine instructions also needed more detail.
“Some improvements were needed to the recording arrangements for topical medicines such as creams.” from the report
Training structure
needs fixingNew staff received induction and mandatory training, but the home did not offer the Care Certificate. Inspectors recommended introducing it to give initial training more structure.
“However the service did not currently offer the Care Certificate.” from the report
Care plan reviews
needs fixingMost care planning was good, but some evaluation notes did not clearly show that care plans had been thoroughly reviewed. Some end of life plans also needed more detail.
“The quality of care plans was generally good, although some of the quality of evaluation notes needed improving to demonstrate they had been robustly evaluated.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure cream and other topical medicine records are completed at the time of application?
- 02What has been done to improve the detail and review of risk assessments, particularly after falls?
- 03Have you introduced the Care Certificate for new staff, and how do you check that their training is complete?
- 04How are care plans and end of life plans reviewed to make sure they reflect current needs?
- 05What activities are available for someone who prefers one-to-one support or spends time in their room?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 January 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.
Every inspection of Springbank Care Home
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 November 2017.
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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.