CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Springside
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some risks to people and the environment were not properly assessed or monitored. Inspectors also found issues with fire safety checks, hot water temperatures, medicines storage and staff training.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in the report, although inspectors observed kind, compassionate and respectful care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in the report, although staff were described as understanding people's communication needs and supporting their choices.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home did not have effective systems to monitor quality, safety or staff training. The registered manager was open to feedback and took action during and after the inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Springside was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, consistent support but gaps in risk management and oversight.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 and 24 May 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, staff and relatives, reviewed care and medicines records, and checked how the home was run.
People were generally supported by staff who knew them well. Inspectors saw kind and respectful care, support for independence, and help with health needs and medicines. Relatives said there were enough staff and that people were safe and well cared for.
However, some risks had not been properly assessed or reviewed. Inspectors found outdated care plans and risk assessments, gaps in fire safety checks, hot water that could cause scalds, and weaknesses in medicines storage and staff training.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2018 to Requires Improvement. The home was also rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. CQC found breaches of Regulations 12 and 17 and asked for an action plan.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff protecting people's dignity and responding to their individual needs with patience and compassion.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Consistent staff team
Low staff turnover meant people were supported by staff who knew them well.
“Staff turnover was very low, which supported people to receive consistent care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Support for independence
Staff helped people make choices, remain independent and take positive risks in their daily lives.
“During the inspection we observed staff supporting people to be independent and have control over their own lives.” from the report
Enough staff
People and relatives told inspectors that staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs, including support to go out.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Risks were not reliably managed
seriousSome care plans and risk assessments were out of date. Fire safety arrangements, evacuation plans and environmental risks also needed attention.
“The provider had failed to adequately assess, monitor, and manage risks to service users' health and safety.” from the report
Fire and scalding risks
seriousThe fire risk assessment was old and had not been reviewed after a fire service visit. Hot water from one communal bathroom tap was too hot and presented a scalding risk.
“This presented a risk of scalds for vulnerable people who lived at the home.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home did not have effective audits for care quality, health and safety or staff training. This meant some problems had not been identified earlier.
“The provider did not always operate effective systems and processes to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Medicines arrangements
needs fixingMedicines were given as prescribed, but storage temperatures were not monitored and some staff did not have up-to-date training or recorded competency checks.
“People received their medicines as prescribed, although medicines were not always stored appropriately.” from the report
Infection control records and training
needs fixingThe infection control risk assessment was out of date. Cleaning records, some fridge temperature records and staff infection control training also needed improvement.
“A number of staff had not received up to date infection control training in line with the providers policy.” from the report
- 01Have all people's care plans, risk assessments and personal emergency evacuation plans now been reviewed and updated?
- 02Has the new fire risk assessment been completed, and are fire alarm checks, emergency lighting checks and evacuation drills now recorded as required?
- 03How are hot water temperatures, uncovered radiators and other environmental risks now checked and managed?
- 04How do you check that medicines are stored at safe temperatures and that every staff member has current medicines training and competency records?
- 05What quality audits and staff training monitoring are now in place to make sure the problems found by inspectors do not happen again?
This was an unannounced focused inspection that rated Safe and Well-led; the report did not give ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 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, March 2018
Springside is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some activities and training to keep under review.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 February 2018. The inspector spoke with people living there, staff, the manager and a relative. They observed care and checked care, medicines, safety and quality records.
The home supported seven adults with learning disabilities or autism. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and clean, well-maintained surroundings. People were supported to see health professionals and to take part in daily choices and activities.
Inspectors found staff to be kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs. The home was described as relaxed and family-style. The manager had systems to check quality and make improvements.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings in all five areas. This was unchanged from the previous inspection in October 2015.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risk assessments and safety checks were in place.
“People we spoke to told us they felt safe in the home and with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Kind, respectful support
Staff were described as kind and caring. They supported privacy and dignity while encouraging people to do things for themselves.
“People said they were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Personal choice
People helped plan their care and activities. They could make choices about their daily lives, including whether to join activities.
“People were able to make choices about all aspects of their day to day lives.” from the report
Good health support
Staff noticed changes in health and arranged GP, dental, optical and specialist appointments when needed.
“The home arranged for people to see health care professionals according to their individual needs.” from the report
Strong leadership
The manager was closely involved in daily care, knew people's needs and supported the staff team. Quality checks and feedback were used to improve the service.
“The registered manager took action to ensure people received good care.” from the report
Some activities had stopped
minorThe manager acknowledged that some activities people had enjoyed in the past had dropped off. Families should ask how people are offered new choices and supported to revisit activities.
“there were some things people had enjoyed in the past that had "dropped off" and perhaps it was time to re-visit some of them.” from the report
Some specialist training was older
minorSome training for particular needs had been completed some time earlier. Inspectors still found that staff understood the people they supported.
“Some of this training had been completed some time ago however staff continued to show they had good knowledge of the people they were supporting.” from the report
- 01Which activities have stopped, and how will you help my relative try new activities or return to activities they previously enjoyed?
- 02When was staff training for autism, epilepsy and other specific needs last refreshed?
- 03How will you review my relative's care plan and respond if their needs or wishes change?
- 04How will my relative be supported to make everyday choices and remain as independent as possible?
- 05How will you keep me informed about my relative's health and care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings were Good; the previous overall Good rating was from October 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 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 Springside
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.