CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springbank House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including PPE, testing, visiting, cleaning and outbreak arrangements. They also found enough staff were deployed to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements at Springbank House Care Home.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Staff used suitable protective equipment, had up-to-date infection-control training and had enough protective equipment available. They were also assured that testing, vaccinations, visiting and outbreak arrangements were in place.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic, with attention to frequently touched surfaces and shared facilities.
“The environment was clean and hygienic throughout. Attention was given to frequently touched surfaces and facilities in use by multiple people” from the report
Staff infection-control training
Staff understood their infection-control responsibilities and were up to date with relevant training.
“All staff were current with training including IPC, the use of PPE, health and safety and Covid-19 preparedness.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used different levels of protective equipment for different tasks, and the home had enough supplies.
“We observed staff use different levels of PPE depending upon the task they were completing. There was a sufficient supply of PPE available for staff to use.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
A separate visiting room helped provide privacy and reduce infection risks during visits.
“This allowed people privacy for visits and a contained area to minimise the risk of infection.” from the report
Emergency supplies
The home had emergency supplies ready in case someone needed to isolate during an infection outbreak.
“This system included an emergency box with personal protective equipment (PPE), hand sanitiser and cleaning supplies” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the home's current ratings, as this inspection was not rated?
- 02How are infection-control arrangements and visiting procedures managed now?
- 03How many staff are usually on duty, and how does the home cover COVID-19-related staff pressures?
- 04How often are staff trained in infection prevention, PPE and COVID-19 preparedness?
- 05Are emergency infection-control supplies still kept ready for immediate use?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 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.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the meal-time experience required improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 5 June 2018. The inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living in the home, visitors and staff. They observed care and checked care records, staff files, medicines, safety checks and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement because some people did not have a comfortable or well-organised meal-time experience, although their dietary needs were being met.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable recruitment checks and good systems for managing risks. People said staff were kind, respected their privacy and helped them make choices. Activities, complaints arrangements and care planning were also found to be responsive.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and staff responded promptly when help was needed. Risks were assessed and staff used equipment safely.
“People confirmed that staff responded promptly if they rang pressed their call bells for assistance.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with warmth, respect and patience. People's privacy, dignity, choices and independence were supported.
“People were treated them with consideration and respect and their rights to make choices was promoted.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found secure medicine storage, clear records and guidance for medicines given when needed. Staff had training and checks.
“Clear records were in place that demonstrated people received their medicine as prescribed and if not, the reason why.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
People were offered a range of activities, including group events and one-to-one time. Staff respected people's choices if they did not want to join in.
“I try to provide activities that appeal to everybody on different days.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider and manager carried out checks on care, medicines, safety and infection control. An improvement plan recorded actions and completion dates.
“The provider and registered manager conducted regular audits to check that people received good quality care.” from the report
Food handling and mealtime choices
needs fixingInspectors saw staff carrying plates with bare hands and their thumbs on the plates. Music was played without asking people whether they wanted it or preferred something else.
“Staff wore protective aprons but we saw staff members carrying plates of food to people with bare hands and their thumbs on the plates.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made so people can eat hot meals safely and comfortably, including access to suitable trays?
- 02How do you organise staff roles during meal times so people are not left waiting or unsupported?
- 03How do you ensure plates are carried and served hygienically?
- 04How do you ask people about music and other aspects of the meal-time environment?
- 05How do you check whether the meal-time improvements have made a difference to people's experience?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 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 Springbank House Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.