CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springbank Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable staffing, risk assessments, safeguarding systems and medicine processes. The home was clean and had infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans were reviewed. Staff had training and supervision, and people were supported with nutrition, health care and their legal rights.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans contained detailed information about people's preferences and needs. People were supported with communication, activities, community involvement and family relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found quality checks, staff meetings, feedback arrangements and partnership working. The manager had improvement objectives for the service.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Springbank Road is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and support workers. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files, policies and quality records.
The home supported four people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorders. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staffing was suitable and risks were assessed. People received support with food, health care, communication, activities and keeping in touch with family.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection in July 2017. The report says the home was not providing end-of-life care at the time, and no one had been consulted about this because of the young age of the people living there.
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to support people with medicines. Inspectors found the medicine records they checked had been completed correctly.
“People's medicines were stored, administered, and managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“People were well treated, and relatives told us that people were treated with kindness.” from the report
Community activities
People took part in education, social and leisure activities, as well as community projects. The home also helped people maintain important relationships.
“Regular activities included adult education classes, attending the local library, bowling, swimming, and attending social clubs for people with learning disabilities.” from the report
Working with professionals
The home worked with health and social care professionals, including psychologists, therapists and social workers, to support people's needs.
“The service regularly worked in partnership with a range of other health and social care professionals to ensure people received ongoing support to meet their needs.” from the report
End-of-life planning
minorThe home was not providing end-of-life care at the time of the inspection. No one had been consulted about their end-of-life care needs, so families may want to ask how future wishes would be discussed.
“Due to the young age of the people receiving care and support no one had been consulted about their end of life care needs.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative if their health or support needs changed?
- 02How do you record and review my relative's communication needs and the best way to respond if they become distressed?
- 03How would you discuss and record my relative's wishes about end-of-life care in the future?
- 04How are medicine records checked, and what happens if a medicine error is found?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, including care, accommodation, records, staffing and management; the report says the home was not providing end-of-life care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 2020 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 2017
Rated Good and remained Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 15 June 2017. One inspector spoke with three people, four staff and the registered manager. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks, and contacted three health and social care professionals afterwards.
The home supported up to four people with a learning disability, and four people were living there at the time. Inspectors found that people were kept safe, received their medicines properly and were supported by trained staff. Care was described as kind, respectful and focused on people's independence, communication, health and chosen activities.
The home was also found to respond to changing needs, manage anxiety and behavioural support needs, and deal with complaints appropriately. Staff felt supported, communication was open and the provider carried out regular checks on quality and safety.
The home was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection in June 2015, so this inspection found that the rating remained the same.
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found that medicines were stored securely, records were complete and stocks matched the records. They also found enough safely recruited staff to support people in the home and community.
“We found there were no gaps in staff recording on MAR charts and the medicines stocks tallied with balances on MAR charts.” from the report
Support for independence
People were supported to take part in everyday tasks and build practical skills, rather than having everything done for them.
“People's independence continued to be promoted. The service adopted an 'active support approach' to skills teaching.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that staff respected privacy, used positive language in records and supported important relationships.
“We observed warm interactions between people, the care staff and the registered manager throughout the inspection.” from the report
Activities chosen by people
People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities, including cycling, swimming, arts and crafts, social clubs and trips.
“People were supported to participate in activities of their choice.” from the report
Good oversight
The provider and manager monitored the home through audits, meetings and action plans. Staff said management was open and supportive.
“This meant people continued to be supported in a service with robust quality assurance processes.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative's risk plan if their needs changed?
- 02How would staff support my relative's particular communication needs, including any communication passport or signs they use?
- 03What activities could my relative choose, and what support or equipment would they need to take part?
- 04How would you support my relative if they became anxious or found busy places difficult?
- 05How would you involve my relative and their family in regular care plan reviews and decisions about their support?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, with a rating given for each area. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 2017 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 Road
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Lewisham
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.