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
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding procedures. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines arrangements and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not included in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not included in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not included in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular quality and safety checks, acted on findings and involved people, relatives and health professionals in reviewing the service.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Springfield Residential Home: Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well managed.
This was an unannounced inspection on the first day and an announced inspection on the second day. One inspector spoke with 7 people and 9 staff, reviewed care and recruitment records, and received feedback from relatives and health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, infection control arrangements were effective, and risks were assessed and reviewed.
Inspectors also found regular checks on care, medicines, incidents, infection control and health and safety. The home acted on issues it found and worked with health and social care professionals to meet people's needs.
The overall rating remains Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in September 2017. This inspection did not assess Effective, Caring or Responsive.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and comfortable with staff. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
“People commented, "I feel really safe here, the staff look after me" and "It's a lovely place, I feel content here.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The home aimed to use a consistent staff team who knew people well.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet the needs of the people at the service.” from the report
Regular oversight
The management team used audits and other checks to monitor care, risks, medicines, incidents, infection control and health and safety.
“Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Support for choice
Inspectors found that staff supported people to make decisions and used the least restrictive approach possible.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often will my relative's risk assessments be reviewed, especially for falls, eating and drinking, mobility or skin care?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's medicines remain accurate, in date and given as prescribed?
- 03How do you maintain staffing levels when regular staff are off sick?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in care reviews and decisions?
- 05How do you use audits and incident reviews to make changes to my relative's care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key question ratings were not assessed in this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 June 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, September 2017
Springfield Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 16 and 21 August 2017. One inspector spoke with 12 people and eight staff, observed care, and reviewed care files, staff records, training records and other documents.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, caring, responsiveness and leadership. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and people's health needs were supported.
People's care plans reflected their preferences and included activities, community visits and family contact. Inspectors saw kind interactions, respect for privacy and dignity, and evidence that people's views were used to improve the service.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in August 2015, so the overall rating remained Good. The inspection team did not receive feedback from health and social care professionals they contacted.
Safe care
Risks were identified and reviewed, with measures kept as least restrictive as possible. Medicines were safely administered and checked.
“Measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible to protect people's freedom.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received training and supervision and were considered competent to meet people's current and changing needs.
“People received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and competent.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
Inspectors saw patient, friendly care. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“Staff were interacting with people in a kind and gentle way throughout our inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care files included people's histories, likes, dislikes and health needs. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“Care files were personalised to reflect people's personal preferences.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in activities inside and outside the home, including meals out and visits to places of interest.
“People engaged in wide variety of activities and spent time in the local community going to specific places of interest.” from the report
Monitoring and improvement
The home used audits, surveys and reviews of incidents to identify actions and make changes.
“A number of methods were used to assess the quality and safety of the service people received and made continuous improvements in response to their findings.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the current position on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications that were pending assessment at the inspection?
- 02How will you keep my relative's care plan and risk assessments up to date if their health or needs change?
- 03How are staff kept informed about changes in people's care when there are no formal staff meetings?
- 04How do you check that medicines continue to be given correctly and that audits identify any problems?
- 05How are residents and relatives currently asked for their views, and what changes have been made as a result?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating; the rating remained Good from the previous inspection in August 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 September 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 Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Springfield Residential Home →
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Springfield Residential Home →
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 April 2012.
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 Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.