CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springfield House Retirement Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were not always administered as prescribed, and some medicine records were inaccurate. An electrical safety action had not been completed at the time of inspection, but the home said it was completed afterwards.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff training was up to date, people were supported with food and drink and health needs, and staff understood consent and capacity requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed respectful interactions, and staff supported people's privacy, dignity, independence and personal preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans explained how to meet people's needs and preferences. People had choices, support with relationships and activities, accessible communication arrangements and a complaints system.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff were open during the inspection and showed commitment to improving care. Surveys and meetings were used to gather views, and the home acted on suggestions.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care alongside medicine and electrical safety shortfalls.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 13 and 19 December 2019. The inspector spoke with three people, one relative, the manager and staff. They reviewed care and medicine records, staff files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People said staff were kind, respectful and available, and inspectors found personalised care, enough staff, activities and good support with health needs.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Medicines were not always given as prescribed and some medicine records were inaccurate. An electrical safety issue from an earlier test had not been completed, but the home confirmed this work was finished after the inspection. The report says no one had come to harm from the medicine errors.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that staff respected people's dignity and privacy.
“People and their relatives told us they were treated kindly by caring staff.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw people being attended to promptly. The home also had recruitment checks to assess whether staff were suitable to work in care.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and we observed people being attended to in a timely manner.” from the report
Personal choice
People were involved in decisions about their care, meals and daily lives. Staff supported independence and adapted communication to individual needs.
“People were encouraged to have full control of their lives.” from the report
Open management
The manager responded to issues raised during the inspection and used surveys and meetings to identify improvements.
“Throughout the inspection, the management team were open and transparent towards the evidence we presented and were proactive in their response to our findings.” from the report
Medicine errors and records
seriousSome medicines were missed, including one medicine that was not given for six days. The report also found that medicine records did not always show when medicines had been given.
“One person had not been given a medicine for a period of six days because they were sleeping.” from the report
Electrical safety action
seriousAn earlier five-year electrical check had identified an urgent issue with lights becoming overheated. This had not been completed when inspectors visited, although the home later confirmed the work was done.
“The electrical 5 yearly check carried out in March 2016 was unsatisfactory.” from the report
Limited supervision records
needs fixingStaff files did not contain enough records of supervision meetings. The manager took immediate action after this was identified, and staff said they felt supported.
“We found a lack of supervision records in staff files.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent missed medicines and inaccurate medicine records?
- 02How are medicine errors now investigated, and how quickly are they reviewed?
- 03Can you show me confirmation that the electrical safety work identified in the 2016 test was completed?
- 04How often do staff receive recorded supervision, and where are those records kept?
- 05How will you monitor the Safe rating and report progress to families?
This inspection looked at all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; it also checked whether earlier safety actions had been completed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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, May 2017
Rated Good across all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some records and confidentiality points to improve.
Inspectors visited without warning on 25 April 2017. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care, mealtimes, activities and medicines rounds, and checked care, staff, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led care. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, personalised care plans, good activities and positive relationships with people and relatives.
The previous inspection in February 2016 had found problems with medicines and with managing and checking the quality of the service. This inspection found that these problems had been addressed and the needed improvements had been made.
Medicines were safer
Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed. Records, audits, staff checks and controlled-drug procedures were in place.
“Where people required support with their medicines this was done safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave consistently positive feedback. Staff were observed to be patient, sensitive and familiar with people's preferences.
“The feedback we received was extremely positive. Our observations confirmed that care workers cared about the people they were supporting.” from the report
Activities and independence
People could choose from group and individual activities, including trips out. Care plans supported people to remain as independent as possible.
“People were encouraged to participate in activities of their choosing both as groups and on their own.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had introduced wider quality checks and time-limited action plans. Inspectors found that records were maintained and current.
“Comprehensive quality assurance systems and processes were now in place.” from the report
Confidentiality in shared areas
minorInspectors reminded staff to take care when discussing private or sensitive care matters in communal areas where other people might overhear.
“Although staff need to be mindful of confidentiality when discussing care needs in areas where they may be overheard.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingPeople were asked for consent, but their agreement was not always recorded because most records were electronic. The home was considering a new way to improve this.
“it was not always recorded because the majority of records were kept electronically.” from the report
One complaint remained open
minorSix of seven complaints had been resolved quickly, but one complaint was still being dealt with when inspectors visited.
“One complaint was still outstanding and was being dealt with by the registered provider.” from the report
Missing laundry
minorFour people reported that some laundry had gone missing. The home had changed its system, and the report says these incidents had reduced significantly.
“four people said that they had experienced some laundry going missing.” from the report
- 01How do you now record each person's consent to their care and support?
- 02What steps do staff take to keep private care discussions confidential in communal areas?
- 03How was the outstanding complaint resolved, and what changes followed it?
- 04How do you track and return laundry, and have any items gone missing recently?
- 05How do your medicines audits and staff competency checks work since the problems found at the previous inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and it checked whether improvements from the February 2016 inspection had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 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 Springfield House Retirement Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Springfield House Retirement Home →
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Springfield House Retirement Home →
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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 Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.