CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were identified and reviewed, staffing levels met people's needs, and staff recruitment checks had been completed. Some handwritten medicine entries had not been signed, but this was corrected immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed to meet people's needs. People were supported with food, healthcare appointments, communication and decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found kind and respectful support. People were encouraged to make choices, develop independence, maintain relationships and use their own private space.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and reviewed. Relatives raised concerns about activities and some complaints, but the report says measures were put in place and the issues were resolved after the inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had audits, regular communication and systems for learning from incidents and feedback. Professionals and relatives raised concerns that frequent changes of managers and staff affected continuity.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Springfield rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but noted concerns about activities and changes in managers and staff.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 January 2020. One inspector met both residents, spoke with staff and managers, reviewed care and medicines records, and considered information from relatives and healthcare professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were managed, medicines were given safely, staff were trained, and people received support suited to their needs.
Residents had their own self-contained flats. Staff supported choice, independence, communication, healthcare, activities and contact with relatives. However, some relatives raised concerns about one person's wellbeing and activities. The report says measures were put in place after the inspection to address these issues.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 5 July 2017. This report did not identify any breaches of regulations or enforcement action.
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, routines and communication methods. Staff understood how to support each person and promote independence.
“People's computerised care records were detailed and personalised to meet individual needs.” from the report
Safety and staffing
Risks were assessed and reviewed. Staffing was flexible, including extra support for appointments, absences and community activities.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff employed and on duty to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found positive relationships between people and staff. Privacy, dignity, choice and independence were promoted.
“People were treated with consideration and kindliness.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff completed induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Training included people's specific needs.
“People received effective care and treatment from competent, knowledgeable and experienced staff who had the relevant skills and qualifications to meet their needs.” from the report
Links with health services
Staff supported people to attend health appointments and followed advice from healthcare professionals.
“Staff supported people to see their GP, epilepsy nurse and attend other health appointments when required.” from the report
Activities and wellbeing
needs fixingRelatives raised concerns about one person's wellbeing and the activities they were taking part in. The report says measures were put in place after the inspection.
“However, there were some issues raised about the wellbeing of one person and the lack of activities they were involved with.” from the report
Changes in staff and managers
needs fixingProfessionals and relatives said frequent changes in managers and the staff team affected continuity of care.
“However, we received feedback from professionals and relatives on the frequent changes of managers and staff team which they felt did not help with continuity.” from the report
Medicine records
minorSome handwritten medicine entries had not been signed. The home corrected this immediately during the inspection.
“However, some hand-written entries on the medicine's sheets had not been signed.” from the report
- 01What activities are now available for each person, and how do you check that they match their needs and wishes?
- 02How are you maintaining continuity of care when managers or staff members change?
- 03How do you check that every medicines record is completed and signed correctly?
- 04How are relatives or advocates involved in reviewing care plans when a person cannot fully communicate their views?
- 05How are concerns and complaints recorded, investigated and fed back to families?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the home was rated Good in each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with limited personalisation in some living areas.
Inspectors visited on 20 and 22 June 2017. The inspection was announced 24 hours in advance because the home is small and residents were often out. They observed care, spoke with relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care records, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home supported two people at the time, although it could accommodate up to three people with learning disabilities and complex needs. Inspectors found people appeared relaxed, happy and well supported. Staff understood people's communication, health needs, risks and preferences.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the home was meeting the relevant standards at that time, but Good is not the highest rating and does not mean everything was perfect.
Kind and respectful support
Staff knew people well, respected their boundaries and gave them time to communicate. They supported independence rather than unnecessarily restricting people.
“People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect.” from the report
Skilled staff
New staff received a thorough induction, followed by house induction and shadowing. Ongoing training covered areas such as autism, epilepsy, safeguarding and positive behaviour support.
“New staff completed a thorough two week training induction process in a classroom setting.” from the report
Personalised activities and choices
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and to make choices about food, routines and daily life. Staff adapted support to individual communication needs.
“The service was responsive. Concerns and complaints were consistently recorded and there were audits in place to monitor outcomes for people and trends.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular audits, staff meetings and feedback from people and families to monitor and improve the service.
“The need to assure quality was understood and there were clear quality assurance systems including a monthly audit of the service's medicines system and monitoring of any concerns.” from the report
Limited personalisation of living areas
minorInspectors found that people's living areas had few pictures or personal belongings. Management said work was under way to make the decoration safe and more personal.
“We saw that people's living areas lacked personalisation to a large degree.” from the report
Mixed views about management
minorOne relative was positive about the current manager but said a previous complaint had not been handled well. The report does not identify a current management breach.
“I've been very impressed with the current manager, though I have been less impressed with a previous manager because of the way a complaint was dealt with.” from the report
- 01How do you help each person communicate their choices, consent and concerns if they cannot speak?
- 02What changes have been made to personalise people's living areas while keeping them safe?
- 03How are medicines checked now, and how are families told about medication changes or reviews?
- 04How are complaints handled, and how can relatives track what action has been taken?
- 05How will you support my relative to take part in activities that match their interests and independence goals?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, based on observations, discussions with relatives, staff and professionals, and checks of care, staffing, medicines and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 July 2016.
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.