CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control was managed safely. They found appropriate arrangements for visitors, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Springfield was rated Good overall; inspectors found strong infection control during the pandemic, but Safe was inspected without a rating.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 28 September 2020. It focused on a specific concern about infection control during the coronavirus pandemic.
The inspector spoke with one person, five staff members and the registered manager. They observed care and reviewed infection control records and information from other organisations.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks safely. The home also supported contact with relatives through video calls, telephones and socially distanced visits.
Safer visiting
Visitors received handwashing facilities, hand sanitiser and temperature checks. Relatives could enter when someone was approaching the end of their life and were given full PPE.
“Everybody entering the service received a temperature check which was recorded.” from the report
Keeping families in touch
The home bought tablet computers and mobile phones to support video and telephone calls. Relatives were kept updated and their feedback was sought.
“The provider had purchased two tablet computers to enable people to have video calls” from the report
Socially distanced visits
The home had bought a marquee for socially distanced visits and planned to provide heating for it.
“The provider had purchased a marquee for socially distanced visits to take place.” from the report
Risk assessment could be developed further
minorInspectors signposted the home to resources to improve its risk assessment work. The report does not say that this led to a breach or enforcement action.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to further develop risk assessment” from the report
- 01What infection control arrangements are in place now, and how are they checked?
- 02What risk assessment work was further developed after the inspection?
- 03How can residents keep in contact with relatives if visits are restricted?
- 04What visiting arrangements are available for relatives when someone is approaching the end of their life?
- 05How are relatives told about changes to the home's arrangements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection control under Safe; the other four questions were not covered and Safe was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 October 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, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but staff training records and follow-up needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines, staffing rotas, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, clean surroundings, good access to healthcare and care plans that reflected people's needs and preferences.
There were some weaknesses. Not all staff had up-to-date safeguarding training, training records were incomplete and actions from supervision were not always followed up. Quality checks had not found these problems quickly enough.
The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection. The report found no serious risks or concerns and no breached regulations were recorded.
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and health professionals gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw calm, friendly interactions and found that staff respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“The atmosphere was calm and friendly and people appeared relaxed around staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's life histories, routines, choices and communication needs. Staff were able to explain how they supported people as individuals.
“Care plans were personalised and included details about people's life histories and their choices and preferences for how they wanted staff to support them.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People had access to varied activities, trips and social opportunities. Activities could be adapted or provided one to one when needed.
“People had access to a wide range of activities.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and found that medicines were stored, recorded and disposed of safely.
“Medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
Records showed regular involvement from healthcare professionals. Professionals said staff contacted them for advice and kept them informed.
“People had access to ongoing healthcare.” from the report
Safeguarding training was not clearly up to date
needs fixingSome staff could not show that they understood all types of abuse. Records showed that some staff had not completed safeguarding training for at least two years, and the records did not clearly show when training had been completed.
“Training records showed that three staff had not completed safeguarding training for at least two years” from the report
Supervision actions were not always followed up
needs fixingTraining gaps had been raised in supervision, but records did not show that these actions were followed through. Not all staff received the planned number of supervision sessions.
“although the gaps in training had been highlighted during staff supervision sessions, there was nothing documented to show these had been followed through.” from the report
Quality checks did not identify problems quickly
minorThe home carried out audits, but they were not frequent enough to identify the training and supervision issues found during the inspection.
“the issues in relation to one element of staff training and supervision which we noted, had not been identified.” from the report
Some medicines guidance was incomplete
needs fixingProtocols for some medicines given only when needed were not consistently in place. People's preferences for taking medicines were also not always recorded.
“PRN protocols were not consistently in place.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that all staff understand what abuse is and know how to report concerns?
- 02Are all staff now up to date with safeguarding training, and can you show how completion dates are recorded?
- 03How do you record and follow up actions agreed during staff supervision?
- 04How do you make sure protocols are in place for medicines prescribed to be given only when needed?
- 05How often are quality audits now completed, and how are problems tracked until they are resolved?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says the overall Good rating continued from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 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 Springfield
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Goodstayed Good
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 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 21 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
25 live-in carers within about an hour of Bath and North East Somerset
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 £1,320 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She enabled mum to lead a high quality life in her own home until the very end and Lena and her family became close personal friends to me and my family.”
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.