CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springfield House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the service was not always effective.
Inspectors visited without notice on 2 October 2019. They spoke with nine people, five relatives, eight staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, staff records and how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good for being safe, caring, responsive and well-led. People were protected from avoidable harm, treated kindly, supported to follow their interests and cared for by a service with improved management systems.
The Effective rating was Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps in staff training and supervision. They also recommended improvements to medicines policies and practice, while the home agreed to improve end of life planning and some records.
Kind and friendly care
People and relatives described staff as kind, thoughtful and helpful. Staff spent time talking with people and offered reassurance.
“The atmosphere was relaxed and friendly. Staff spent time chatting to people and were enthusiastic about their role.” from the report
Quick help
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. People said call bells were answered quickly and they did not wait long for support.
“Call bells were responded to quickly. People told us they did not have to wait long for support.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's individual needs, preferences and personal histories. They were reviewed to keep them up to date.
“Care plans were individualised and addressed people's specific needs. Language used in the care plans was appropriate and respectful.” from the report
Improved management
The provider had improved its monitoring systems since the previous inspection. Risk assessments and care plans were being checked and updated.
“Systems for monitoring the delivery of the service had improved.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
needs fixingSome training was missing or out of date, including training on the Mental Capacity Act and equality. Only four staff had received face-to-face supervision since May 2019.
“Only four members of staff had received face to face supervision since May 2019.” from the report
Medicines systems
needs fixingThere were no recorded competency checks for staff giving medicines and some security checks were not recorded. The provider was asked to update its medicines policies and procedures.
“We recommend that the provider updates medicines policies and procedures to make sure best practice guidance is implemented and followed.” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingPeople's wishes about end of life care were not recorded consistently, and specific end of life care plans were not in place. The manager agreed to develop this area.
“This was limited and there were no specific end of life care plans in place.” from the report
Limited staff meetings
minorStaff had handovers between shifts but there were no organised staff meetings. This meant fewer opportunities for detailed discussion about care and good working practice.
“Staff meetings were not organised. Staff told us they had a thorough handover meeting between shifts but there were limited opportunities for more in-depth conversations about the delivery of care and good working practice.” from the report
- 01What training have all staff now completed on the Mental Capacity Act, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, equality and diversity?
- 02How often do staff receive supervision, and how do you check that every member of staff receives it?
- 03How are staff competency checks and security checks for medicines recorded now?
- 04How do you record and review each person's wishes about end of life care?
- 05How do staff meetings now allow staff to raise concerns and discuss care?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the report says both the premises and the care provided were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 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.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safer medicines, but ongoing risks with pressure mattresses, risk records and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living there, staff, a relative and visiting professionals. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care records, recruitment files, training records and other records.
The home was caring, and people said staff were kind, respectful and responsive. Medicines were being given safely, water safety checks had improved, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
However, the home still had important shortfalls. Pressure mattresses were not always set correctly or checked, risk assessments were incomplete, care plans were not consistently person-centred, activities were limited, and quality checks had not found these problems. The overall rating and four of the five question ratings were Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People reported positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff being patient, discreet and respectful, including when supporting someone who was anxious.
“Staff were patient and discreet when providing care for people.” from the report
Medicines had improved
The report says medicines were being given on time and as prescribed. Room and fridge temperatures were also being recorded.
“People were receiving their medicines on time and as prescribed.” from the report
Quick response to calls
Inspectors saw call bells answered quickly and staff were visible around the home. People said staff were available when needed.
“We observed call bells being responded to very quickly and staff were visible throughout the service at all times.” from the report
Support with health needs
People were supported to see health professionals when needed. Visiting professionals said staff listened and acted on advice.
“I am impressed with the staff team. They listen and act on any advice” from the report
Pressure mattress checks
seriousThree people used pressure-relieving mattresses. One was set above the person's weight, one was faulty and a third could not be checked. The report says this could put skin integrity at risk.
“There were no systems to monitor and audit the pressure mattress settings.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousSome risks were not assessed in enough detail. The report also found gaps and unclear outcomes in reviews of choking risks.
“Risk assessments did not always have enough information to support staff in identifying and mitigating risks.” from the report
Care plans were not person-centred
needs fixingCare records were mainly task-focused and did not consistently show the person's involvement or wishes. Some language was described as insensitive or disrespectful.
“Care planning records were mainly task centred and did not demonstrate the involvement of the person or of those who knew the person well” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingThere were few activities, with little evidence that people were supported to go out in the home's transport. The report found no specific activities for people living with dementia.
“There were a limited range of activities for people to take part in.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's checks had not found or corrected several problems with risk records, care plans, mattress checks and end of life preferences.
“The provider did not have sufficient arrangements in place to monitor the quality and safety of the care and support provided in the home.” from the report
Recruitment check completed late
needs fixingIn one case, a staff member started work before satisfactory references had been received. The home said it was taking steps to improve its records.
“A staff member had commenced work prior to satisfactory references being returned.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that each pressure-relieving mattress is working and set correctly for the person using it?
- 02How do you make sure every person's risk assessment is specific, up to date and clear about the action staff must take?
- 03Can I see how care plans record each person's own wishes, language and involvement in decisions?
- 04What meaningful activities are now available, particularly for people living with dementia and people who used to have specific hobbies?
- 05How often do staff receive one-to-one supervision, and how are end of life wishes recorded?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions, with checks of care, records, staffing, training and the environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 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 House Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Springfield House Residential Care Home →
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Springfield House Residential Care Home →
- May 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.