CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springkell House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found people felt safe and well cared for, but leadership and quality checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 30 June, 06 July and 17 July 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People and relatives said staff were kind and that people felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk assessments, safe medicines administration and suitable infection control. Concerns that had prompted the inspection were examined, but inspectors found no evidence to support them.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. The provider's checks had not identified missing instructions for some medicines given when needed. The home had also been without a registered manager for about 12 months, and had not consistently accepted specialist training offered by healthcare professionals. The medicines issue and training arrangements were addressed during or after the inspection, but the new systems still needed time to become established.
The overall rating remained Good. This was because only Safe and Well-led were inspected in detail, while the other question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection in 2018.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to report concerns.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe living at Springkell House Care Home.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff during the visits. Staff responded promptly and checked regularly on people who stayed in their rooms.
“We observed there were sufficient staff during the inspection.” from the report
Risk management
Care records included assessments for falls, choking, malnutrition and pressure areas. Staff had plans to reduce identified risks, including personal emergency evacuation plans.
“Records showed that people's risks had been assessed and there were instructions for staff to follow.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were positive about the staff and atmosphere. Inspectors saw staff asking permission and offering people choices.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a respectful way.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The manager reviewed accidents and incidents, looked for patterns and put some additional moving and handling measures in place after concerns about bruising.
“The manager monitored accidents and incidents to identify patterns and reduce the risk of them happening again.” from the report
Medicine instructions were missed by checks
needs fixingThere were no clear protocols for some medicines given when needed. The provider introduced them immediately, but the report said more time was needed to embed the improved systems.
“The provider's own quality assurance systems did not identify what we identified in relation to the shortfalls of 'when required' (PRN) protocols.” from the report
No registered manager for about a year
needs fixingThe previous registered manager left in June 2022. The current manager applied to become registered after inspectors raised this, but the home had been without a registered manager for approximately 12 months.
“The service was without a registered manager for approximately 12 months.” from the report
Specialist pressure-area training was not taken up
needs fixingThe home had not always accepted specialist training offered by healthcare professionals. Two people had pressure areas when inspectors visited, and the provider arranged the training after this was highlighted.
“Despite people's specific needs, the provider had not ensured staff had undertaken relevant training when offered this by local partners.” from the report
Limited feedback from professionals
minorThe provider gathered feedback from people, relatives and staff, but did not have a system for collecting and acting on feedback from visiting professionals.
“The provider had no systems in place to seek feedback from professionals who visited the service and act on this.” from the report
- 01Have the new protocols for medicines given when needed been fully put into practice, and how are they now checked?
- 02Has the current manager's application to become the registered manager been completed?
- 03What specialist training have staff completed on pressure-area and pressure-ulcer prevention?
- 04How do you now collect and act on feedback from healthcare professionals who visit the home?
- 05What actions remain on the provider's improvement plan, and when will they be reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection published in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 September 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 March 2021. Inspectors checked how the home was preventing and controlling infection in response to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, followed testing guidance, supported social distancing and kept its infection control policy up to date. They also found cleaning, handwashing and visiting arrangements in place.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for care, effectiveness, kindness, responsiveness or leadership.
Staff training and PPE
Infection control training was updated as guidance changed. Staff had enough PPE and inspectors saw it being used correctly.
“Staff received infection control training which was regularly updated as guidance changed.” from the report
Cleaning and layout
The home changed its layout to support social distancing and increased cleaning of frequently touched areas. Hand gel was available throughout the home.
“Cleaning schedules had been adapted to ensure high touch areas were cleaned frequently and hand gel was available throughout the home.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
COVID-19 testing was carried out in line with government guidance. The home had plans for what staff should do if someone tested positive.
“Testing for COVID-19 was completed in line with government guidance.” from the report
Safer visiting
The home used booked visits and health checks for visitors. A room with outside access and handwashing facilities was available for visits.
“Visiting protocols were in place which included a booking system for designated visitors.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection control arrangements changed since the inspection on 24 March 2021?
- 02How do you now check that staff training and PPE use remain up to date?
- 03What testing and outbreak arrangements are currently used if someone tests positive?
- 04What are the current rules and facilities for visiting residents?
- 05How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and how is this checked?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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.
Every inspection of Springkell House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 January 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.