CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springfield Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe medicine management, appropriate staff recruitment checks, safeguarding arrangements, risk assessments and infection control measures. They also noted concerns about staffing levels and call bell response times.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found inconsistent management and leadership. There was no registered manager, call bell response times were not being audited, and communication with relatives was not always prompt.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Springfield Park Care Home is rated Good overall, but inspectors found delays with call bells and leadership that Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 26 May 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because of concerns about staffing. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found safe medicine systems, suitable recruitment checks, safeguarding arrangements, risk assessments and infection control measures. However, some people said call bells were not answered quickly because staff were often busy with people who had complex needs.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. There was no registered manager in post, and communication with relatives was not always prompt. The overall rating was Good, but the other three key questions were not inspected during this visit and their previous ratings were carried forward. The home had improved since the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of regulations.
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered and given by trained staff whose competence was checked. Records and audits showed medicines were administered appropriately.
“Medicines were managed safely. People had their medicines ordered and administered safely by trained staff who had their competencies checked regularly.” from the report
Staff recruitment
The home completed the necessary recruitment checks to make sure staff were suitable for their roles.
“Recruitment was well managed. Records showed that all necessary checks were made to ensure staff were suitable for the role.” from the report
Risk and safeguarding systems
People had individual risk assessments and care plans. Staff had safeguarding training and understood safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures.
“There were systems and processes in place to keep people safe.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures for PPE, testing, visits, hygiene, social distancing and managing infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Call bell delays
needs fixingSome people said they waited too long for help after using their call bells. Inspectors recommended reviewing staffing levels and adding audits of response times.
“People told us they did not always receive a prompt response from staff when requesting support using their call bells.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. The home was recruiting, and this limited the rating that could be given.
“There was no registered manager in place at the time of inspection.” from the report
Food choices
minorSome people said the food was not varied or suitable for everyone's tastes. Inspectors discussed the need to consider preferences and offer options.
“Some people told us the food available at the service was not varied and suitable for everyone's taste.” from the report
- 01How many staff are on duty for the current level of need, and how do you review this?
- 02How quickly are call bells usually answered, and can we see the results of your response-time audits?
- 03Has a registered manager now been appointed and registered with the CQC?
- 04How will you tell relatives promptly when a person's care needs or medicines change?
- 05How do you record people's food preferences and provide suitable alternatives?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 2021 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 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found better care and management, but medicines were not always administered safely and the home remains under close scrutiny.
Inspectors visited the home without notice over two days in December 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management checks, and observed care.
There had been clear improvements since the previous inspection. Safe, effective, caring and responsive care were all better than before. People had individual care plans, access to healthcare, activities and support with their choices. Staff were described as kind and respectful.
However, some medicines records were incomplete, one person did not receive prescribed medicated toothpaste, and checks did not find these errors. Audits also failed to identify some oral health and medicines problems. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Safe and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement.
The previous overall rating was Inadequate and the home had been in Special Measures since July 2019. It is no longer in Special Measures because the overall rating and all key question ratings improved, although further improvement was still required.
Dignity and respect
Inspectors found that earlier problems with privacy, respectful language and personal care had been addressed. Staff were observed to be friendly and professional.
“At this inspection the issues had been addressed and we found staff promoted people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, likes and dislikes. They were developed with people and families where appropriate and were regularly reviewed.
“The plans were detailed and gave staff sufficient information to deliver effective care.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could join group or individual activities, including music, exercise, outings and support with education. Activities were adapted for people who preferred one-to-one support.
“Activities were provided twice a day.” from the report
Improved management support
Staff said the new managers were more approachable and supportive. Inspectors also saw improved handovers and partnership working with outside organisations.
“The new managers are out and about getting to know people” from the report
Medicines administration
seriousMedicines were not always managed safely. Inspectors found a stock error, gaps in signing records and one person did not receive prescribed medicated toothpaste.
“One person did not receive their medicated toothpaste as prescribed.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits did not identify medicines recording errors or that some people's oral health care was not being delivered. This resulted in a breach of good governance rules.
“However, audits had failed to pick up medicines recording errors and people's oral health needs not always met.” from the report
Oral health care
needs fixingAlthough oral health needs were assessed, inspectors found evidence suggesting that some people had not received oral health care. Staff training and extra auditing were planned in response.
“We found evidence which suggested that people had not had any oral health care.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff had not received formal supervision for some time. Managers had restarted supervision and had a plan to bring this up to date.
“Supervision of staff was ongoing although some staff had not had formal supervision for some time.” from the report
- 01What weekly checks are now being made to ensure medicines are signed for, counted correctly and given as prescribed?
- 02How do you check that every person receives the oral health care set out in their assessment and care plan?
- 03What action is taken when a medicines error or missed treatment is found?
- 04Have all staff now received formal supervision, and how often will this happen?
- 05Has the manager's application to register with the CQC been completed?
This was an unannounced, planned follow-up inspection covering all five key questions after the previous Inadequate rating and required action. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 January 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.
Every inspection of Springfield Park Care Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 June 2018.
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 Rochdale
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. 92 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.