CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springfield Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Springfield Lodge Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and respectful care but unsafe medicines, incomplete records and weak oversight.
Inspectors made unannounced visits on 2 and 8 December 2022. They spoke with five people, five relatives and 13 staff. They also reviewed six care records and eight medicine records.
They found problems with medicines, risk assessments, staff training, eating and drinking support, care records and checks on the quality of the service. These problems meant people could be at risk of harm. There was no registered manager in post during the inspection, and agency staff were being used regularly while new staff were recruited.
People and relatives generally described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Infection control, staff recruitment, activities and access to healthcare were positive areas. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2018 to Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people politely and respectfully and encouraging independence.
“People appeared well treated and happy during our visit.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including the use of protective equipment and safe visiting.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People had opportunities to take part in activities, use local services and spend time with others, helping to avoid social isolation.
“People accessed local services and groups, for example a local support group for people living with a dementia.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The home completed checks intended to reduce the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.
“The provider's recruitment processes minimised the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousMedicine quantities did not always match administration records. Guidance and records for creams, patches, variable doses and thickening agents were incomplete.
“Medicines were not managed safely. Quantities of remaining medicines did not always match the records of doses administered, so we could not be assured medicines were administered as prescribed.” from the report
Incomplete training and induction
seriousSome staff had not completed important training, including training on fluids, nutrition and dementia. Some new staff did not have a clear record of their induction.
“The provider had failed to ensure staff had the training and skills needed to carry out their roles.” from the report
Eating and drinking checks
seriousSpecialist diets, weight records and nutritional risk assessments were not always kept up to date or properly monitored.
“People did not always receive effective support with eating and drinking. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Care records were not current
needs fixingCare plans and daily records did not always show people's current needs, choices or support. One care plan had not been reviewed since 2020.
“The provider did not have an effective system in place to ensure people's care plans were current and reflected their needs and choices.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's audits had not identified or dealt with the problems found by inspectors. Actions were recorded but were not always followed through.
“The provider's governance processes had not identified or addressed the issues we identified at this inspection with medicines management, risk management, training, eating and drinking support and care records.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made so medicine quantities, creams, patches, variable-dose medicines and thickening agents are recorded and checked correctly?
- 02Which staff have now completed training in fluids and nutrition, dementia awareness and safeguarding?
- 03How are care plans, daily records, weights and nutritional risk assessments reviewed and kept up to date?
- 04Who is currently managing the home, and what is the timetable for appointing a permanent registered manager?
- 05What evidence can you show that the action plan has been completed and that your audits now identify and follow up problems?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous rating in 2018 was Good, but all questions were reassessed at this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 2023 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, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, safe visiting arrangements and effective handling of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
This was a targeted inspection on 19 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures. The inspection was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors found the home clean, tidy and free from odours. Staff used protective equipment correctly. The home arranged visits to reduce infection risks and followed national guidance at the time.
The staff team worked together during an outbreak and increased sickness. Inspectors were assured about testing, admissions, shielding, social distancing, infection policies and managing outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, tidy and without unpleasant smells.
“The service was clean, tidy and odour free.” from the report
Good PPE practice
Staff used protective equipment appropriately, knew when to change it and disposed of it in clinical waste bins.
“Staff were knowledgeable about when to change their PPE and disposed of it in clinical waste bins.” from the report
Managed visiting
Visits were booked at suitable times and spaced out to reduce the risk of infection spreading between visitors.
“The service was booking visitors in at a time that suited people and was spaced out to avoid potential infection transmission with other visitors.” from the report
Team response to sickness
Staff worked together during an outbreak and increased sickness. This helped reduce reliance on agency staff.
“The staff team had worked together to cover increased staff sickness during an outbreak to minimise the use of agency staff and potential to increase transmission of infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and how do you reduce the risk of infection during visits?
- 02How do you manage staffing levels when staff sickness increases during an outbreak?
- 03How much agency staff do you use now, and what steps do you take to reduce infection risks linked to agency staffing?
- 04How do you make sure staff and visiting professionals meet the current COVID-19 vaccination requirements or have a valid exemption?
- 05How do you keep your infection prevention and control policy up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not assess all five questions and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 January 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 Lodge Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 November 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.