CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springfield Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection, including through protective equipment, testing, cleaning, handwashing and visitor controls.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control during a COVID-19-focused visit.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 21 January 2021. There were 15 people living there. This was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control during the coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors were assured that visitors and staff had temperature checks, handwashing and suitable protective equipment. Staff changed into and out of work clothes at the home, and people and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19.
The home looked clean and uncluttered. Frequently touched surfaces were cleaned every few hours and this was checked by managers. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors were limited to essential visits and had temperature checks, handwashing and protective equipment where needed.
“Visitors were provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) where needed to keep everyone safe.” from the report
Staff infection control
Staff used protective equipment, changed clothes at the home and followed arrangements for putting on and removing PPE.
“Staff changed out of their uniforms before leaving to travel home.” from the report
Cleaning and testing
The home was clean and uncluttered. High-touch areas were cleaned regularly, and people and staff were tested for COVID-19.
“All high touch points were cleaned every few hours and this was regularly monitored by the management team.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now for visitors?
- 02How often are high-touch surfaces cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 03How are people and staff currently tested for COVID-19 or other infections?
- 04How do staff put on, change and remove protective equipment safely?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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, June 2018
Springfield Residential Home was rated Good, with safe and caring support, but some people wanted more activities and clearer signs.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 10 May 2018. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines and management records.
Inspectors found the home safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People felt safe, staff understood safeguarding, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff. Care plans were personalised and people were involved in decisions about their care.
People described staff as kind, respectful and supportive. Food and drink were provided well, healthcare was arranged when needed, and complaints were dealt with under the provider's policy. There were mixed views about activities, and bathroom signs were not always clear.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas. This was an improvement from the previous comprehensive inspection in January 2017, when it was rated Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and risks were reviewed.
“A relative said, "[Family member] is very safe here. I don't have any concerns about the care they receive when I leave.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Inspectors found no gaps or errors in the administration records.
“Administration records were all up to date with no gaps or errors found.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were calm, caring and respectful. They protected people's privacy and encouraged independence.
“The staff`s approach throughout the inspection was calm, caring and respectful of people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans recorded people's preferences and the support they needed. People and relatives were involved in developing them.
“People's care plans provided staff with detailed information on how to respond to each person's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Approachable management
The manager was known to people, relatives and staff. Audits, meetings and newsletters helped monitor the service and share information.
“There was a quality assurance system in place to ensure that where needed improvements were made.” from the report
Bathroom signs
minorNot all signs were clear because bathrooms were labelled as toilets. The home said it would consider buying clearer signs.
“Not all signage was clear as bathrooms were described as toilets.” from the report
Limited social activities
minorActivities were provided, but some people wanted more chances to chat and play games with others. Views about the activities were mixed.
“There were mixed views from people and their relatives about the activities available at the service.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingMental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were made, but care plans did not always show how the Mental Capacity Act affected each person.
“Information in people's care plans had not always shown how the MCA impacted on them.” from the report
- 01What has the home done since the inspection to provide more opportunities for people to chat, play games and join activities?
- 02How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions reflected in my relative's current care plan?
- 03Have the bathroom signs been changed so that they are clear for people living at the home?
- 04How often are medicines records and care plans checked now, and what happens if an error or omission is found?
- 05How will you involve me and my relative in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the premises, care and all five rating areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 June 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 Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Springfield Residential Home →
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Springfield Residential Home →
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 February 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,020 to £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.