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
- Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines arrangements, appropriate recruitment checks and regular safety and fire checks. They also found that accidents and incidents were reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, supervision and competency checks. People were supported with health appointments, nutrition and legally required mental capacity and liberty safeguards arrangements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed positive interactions and caring staff. People were supported with privacy, dignity, independence and everyday choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, regularly reviewed and included communication methods, preferences, health conditions and triggers. People took part in activities and were supported to access the local community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager and systems for checking medicines, incidents, safeguarding, care records and the quality of the service. Inspectors found good oversight and partnership working.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Springfield House was rated Good, with inspectors finding safe, caring and personalised support and no serious concerns.
Inspectors visited on 5 and 7 December 2018. The first visit was unannounced and the second was arranged in advance. They observed care, spoke with the manager and staff, and checked care files, medicines, training, incidents and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found thorough care plans, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines practices, trained staff and a clean, well-maintained home.
People were supported to make choices, follow their preferred routines and take part in activities. The report says the overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in March 2016.
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, communication methods and routines. Staff used this information to provide support in ways suited to each person.
“Person centred care plans and risk assessments were in place to guide staff on the support people needed and how to reduce any identified risks.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines were stored and given as prescribed. Risk assessments and clear guidance helped staff reduce known risks.
“Medicines continued to be stored correctly and administered as prescribed.” from the report
Respectful relationships
Inspectors saw positive interactions between people and staff. Staff understood the importance of privacy, dignity, independence and familiar routines.
“People living at Springfield House were happy and smiling.” from the report
Activities and choice
People helped choose meals and activities, using picture cards or technology where needed. They took part in individual and group activities in the home and community.
“People participated in daily activities depending on their preferred routines and what they enjoyed doing.” from the report
Management oversight
The home used regular audits and checks to review medicines, incidents, safeguarding and care records. External managers also checked the service and concerns identified were acted on.
“There was good oversight of the service from the registered manager.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you increase staffing if my relative's needs or risks changed?
- 02How would you support my relative to communicate choices if they could not communicate verbally?
- 03How would you manage my relative's specific health conditions, such as epilepsy or risks when eating?
- 04What activities and community visits could be provided around my relative's preferred routine?
- 05How would you involve me and my relative if there were incidents, health concerns or changes in care needs?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the overall Good rating remained unchanged from March 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 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 Springfield House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2010.
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 Trafford
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. 91 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.