CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, risks were assessed, the home was clean and medicines were generally managed safely, although some medicine records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had improved its systems for checking quality and safety. Inspectors found clear leadership, good communication and involvement from people, relatives and staff, although some medicine checks needed time to become fully established.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but records for prescribed creams and some controlled medicines needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 January 2024. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care records, staff rotas and management checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, good safeguarding arrangements, improved risk assessments, safe infection control and medicines that were generally managed safely. However, records for prescribed creams and controlled medicines were not always clear.
The overall rating was Good. The previous rating was Requires Improvement in November 2022. The provider had made enough improvement to no longer be in breach of the regulations identified at that inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Relatives also said staffing levels appeared consistent, including at weekends.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and supported them in an individual way. People were supported at their own pace and staff were described as kind and attentive.
“People told us, and we saw, staff treated them in a way which was individual to them.” from the report
Improved safety
Risk assessments, staff training and parts of the environment had improved since the previous inspection. The provider had acted on earlier safety concerns.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 12.” from the report
Clean environment
The home appeared clean and staff followed safe infection control practices. Environmental changes, including new flooring and radiator covers, made cleaning easier.
“People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Prescribed cream records
needs fixingInspectors found shortcomings in the storage and recording of prescribed creams. Storage was corrected immediately, and there was no evidence that anyone had been harmed.
“However, improvements were needed in the storage and record keeping of administration of prescribed creams.” from the report
Controlled medicine records
needs fixingRecords for controlled medicines had improved but were not yet clear enough to identify possible errors quickly.
“Improvements had been made in the record keeping of controlled drugs, however, records needed to be clearer to ensure potential errors were identified promptly.” from the report
Checks still being embedded
needs fixingThe home's quality systems had improved, but inspectors said more time was needed to establish checks for medicine storage and record keeping consistently.
“However, time was needed to embed the checks for medicine storage and record keeping.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that prescribed creams are stored safely and recorded every time they are given?
- 02How do you check controlled medicine records and identify possible errors promptly?
- 03What action will you take if a medicine storage or recording check finds a problem?
- 04How do you decide how many staff are needed on each shift, including weekends?
- 05How will you show that the improvements from the previous inspection have been maintained?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 February 2024 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, November 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and attentive care, but risks, medicines records and management checks were not always handled safely.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 17 October 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, training, recruitment, rotas, audits and other records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found risks were not always assessed properly, some safety problems in the building had not been identified, and medicines records and some medicine instructions were not handled reliably.
People and relatives said they felt safe and cared for. Staff were kind and there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. However, the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection because inspectors found an increased risk that people could be harmed. The provider was asked to send an action plan and progress will be monitored.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe and supported. Staff understood abuse and how to report it.
“People told us they felt safe by the staff who cared for them.” from the report
Kind and attentive staff
Inspectors saw staff supporting people kindly and at their own pace. People and relatives were positive about the care.
“We saw staff were kind and caring in their approach to people.” from the report
Enough staff on duty
People and relatives said staff were available and attentive. Inspectors found there were sufficient numbers on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Safeguarding arrangements
Staff recognised different types of abuse and knew how to report concerns. The provider understood its safeguarding responsibilities.
“Staff understood different types of abuse and how to report this.” from the report
Risk assessments and the environment
seriousSome risks linked to moving and handling, choking, hot water and the building had not been properly identified or controlled. Inspectors found unsafe transfer practice, hot taps, unsecured wardrobes and unsecured loft access.
“Some risks to people in relation to moving and handling, safe eating and environmental aspects had not been identified so that mitigation could take place.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousCovert medicines were not always given as the pharmacist advised. Controlled drug records were not always accurate or up to date, creating a risk that problems would not be found quickly.
“Management of people's medicines was not always completed in a safe way. This placed people at risk of potential harm.” from the report
Infection control details
needs fixingSome rooms had unpleasant odours, and some staff did not always wear face masks correctly. The provider was otherwise assured about several infection prevention arrangements.
“We were not always assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely, as some staff did not always wear their face mask covering over their nose when supporting people.” from the report
Keeping staff up to date
needs fixingThe provider could not be sure staff were consistently up to date with regulations and best practice, including moving and handling and textured modified diets.
“The provider could not be assured their staff team were consistently up to date with regulations and care delivery in line with best practice.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to make moving and handling practice safe, and how is staff competence now checked?
- 02How are covert medicines given now, and how do you confirm that the pharmacist's instructions are followed?
- 03How often are controlled drug records checked, and what happens if a discrepancy is found?
- 04Have the hot water, unsecured wardrobes and loft access been fixed, and when were these repairs completed?
- 05What regular audits now check medicines, care risks and the home environment, and can we see the improvement action plan?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 November 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.
Every inspection of Springfield House
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2021GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 June 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.