Springfield Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe - this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. Staff now assessed and mitigated risks. The management team reviewed any concerns and took action to prevent their reoccurrence. Care plans now guided safe practice. The provider now had enough staff to ensure people’s safety and meet their needs. People were now supported to have choice and control and were involved in planning their care. Improvements had been made to the processes to manage risk and people were supported by staff who knew the help people needed to promote their safety. People received medicines safely from staff who were trained to administer medicines. However, the management of prescribed creams did not follow best practice and the provider took immediate action to improve their safe storage. People lived in a clean environment and staff followed processes to minimise the risk and spread of infection. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm. Staff were recruited safely, undertook training and were deployed so people received support when this was needed or requested. People lived in an environment that was well maintained and equipment was also checked to ensure its safety.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

When required people received one to one support to ensure their safety was maintained. People told us they had built positive relationships with staff and management and felt confident they would be treated positively if they raised any concerns.

The provider had acted and worked with the local authority when concerns had been raised. This had resulted in changes that had improved care for people. Staff told us they would be confident that any concerns raised to the provider would not be overlooked or ignored.

Systems and processes were in place to support continued learning. These included supervisions, training, investigations of concerns and the completion of logs for incidents, accidents, potential safeguarding events and complaints.

People’s views were considered, and this led to positive risk taking by the provider to enhance people’s quality of life. One person told us, “You can do what you want, the staff are out of this world. I go to the pub, and I go shopping when I want.”

The provider worked with the local authority to meet people’s physical and emotional needs. This included providing one to one support to keep people safe. Staff told us that their views were listened to and acted upon. One staff member told us, “[Provider] is very nice to talk to, they give me a lot of support.”

The provider had worked with the local authority to drive improvement on the quality of care being delivered. We were told by a health and social care representative that the provider had engaged in the improvement planning process and improvements had taken place.

Pre-admission assessments were carried out to ensure the service could meet people’s needs. Whenever possible, health professionals and those important to the person were included, this helped ensure all information was gained about the person and care was planned to meet their needs and wishes. Risks related to people were reviewed and referrals were made to specialist support services when required.

People told us they were appropriately supported so they felt safe. They said they understood what it meant to feel safe and could say how they would raise any concerns. People told us they felt confident the provider would act on any concerns raised. Comments included, “Oh yes, I am very safe.” And, “They [staff] are lovely and I am safe.”

Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood the signs that could mean a person was at risk of harm and/or abuse. Staff told us they would report concerns to the provider, and they were confident any concerns would be actioned. One staff member told us, “No resident will be abused in this home.”

People told us they felt safe and knew who to speak with if they had concerns. We observed staff deliver care safely. People were appropriately supported, were comfortable in the company of staff and told us they did not feel unsafe or neglected. Staff were observed to respond to people’s requests and provide them with the support they asked for. The provider had a good understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and this was only used when it was in the best interest of the person.

The provider had a system for the management of safeguarding concerns. This meant people were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. Staff had received training to recognise abuse and knew what action to take to keep people safe, including reporting any allegations to the appropriate person or authority. The provider had a process to learn and make improvements when something went wrong. Staff recorded accidents and incidents, which management reviewed on a regular basis to identify any trends, themes and areas for improvement.

People told us the choices they made about their own care were respected. One person told us, “I have never had an accident. I am very confident with them [staff]."

The provider told us staff were knowledgeable on people’s physical and emotional needs and knew what to do to meet their needs and keep them safe. Staff explained how to keep people safe and said they had been trained on what actions to take to meet people’s physical and emotional needs and to lessen risk when people were distressed.

We observed exit doors were secure, windows had restrictors and the home was free of obstacles to maintain people’s safety. Where appropriate key code door locks had been placed on doors to protect people from accessing hazardous materials. We observed positive risk taking with people being supported to be independent. This was in line with best practice. Staff supported people in accordance with risk assessments, care plans and health professional’s instructions.

Staff had been trained to use equipment to support people to safety in the event of an emergency. Individual risks were assessed and reviewed regularly, and controls were in place to minimise the risk of avoidable harm. The provider had ensured Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) had been completed to show staff how to safely support people in the event of a fire or the need for a building evacuation.

People said they were cared for in a safe environment that was designed to meet their needs. People told us their rooms were cleaned daily.

The provider had systems and processes to detect and control potential risks in the home. Staff had received fire evacuation training. This ensured staff knew what to do in the event of an emergency to lessen the risks and keep people safe.

We had a walk around the home to make sure it was homely, suitable and safe. Feedback from people, and staff was positive on the support delivered. We observed the stair lift and falls mats were suitably maintained and operated correctly. Hazardous materials were securely stored. The flooring in one area of the home was damaged in several places. This was a potential trip hazard and could impact on environmental hygiene. The provider took immediate action to lessen these risks.

After the last inspection, the provider had introduced new practices to ensure fire safety issues were identified and acted on. The provider had ensured Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) had been completed to show staff how to safely support people in the event of a fire or the need for a building evacuation. The management team used a variety of method to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Smoke alarms, fire extinguishers and fire doors complied with British standards and were regularly checked and serviced. The manager sought legal authorisation where people were subject to any restrictions for their safety. Where DoLS authorisations were granted, we saw the service ensured any conditions were met.

We received mixed feedback on staffing levels from people. However, people we spoke with told us staff were responsive and attended to their needs. One person told us, “Maybe a little bit more [staff], especially at weekends, but nobody is not looked after.” And, on suitable staffing levels, “I think so, yes.”

Care staff told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff also told us they felt supported by the management and were provided with the correct training to give them the skills they needed to work with people.

We observed staff were attentive to people’s needs and demonstrated they knew people well and how they wished to be supported. We observed one person had been provided with one to one staffing to keep them and other people safe. Staff were changed on a regular basis to safeguard staff wellbeing and to ensure the person remained engaged with their support. We noted a new staff member was extra to the rota and was shadowing experienced staff members. The provider told us this was to allow the staff member to get to know people and how they liked to be supported.

The provider used a staff dependency tool to calculate the right number of care staff needed on duty each shift to meet people’s needs. The provider operated safe recruitment processes. Staff told us when they had been recruited and a range of checks including references, disclosure and barring checks (DBS) had been requested and obtained prior to starting work in the service. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

People told us they had their rooms cleaned regularly and relatives we spoke with said the service was clean. One person expressed concerns over the quality of the carpets in communal areas of the home.

The provider acknowledged our concerns around the quality of the flooring in some areas of the home. During this assessment they booked a carpet cleaning contractor to visit the home. They stated that they would be looking at alternate flooring for the communal areas of the home. We spoke with the housekeeper who told us they followed cleaning schedules to ensure the service remained clean and hygienic. They told us they had access to suitable cleaning equipment, personal protective equipment and had received appropriate training for their role.

Whilst the home was reasonably clean, inspectors noted some areas which required attention; making thorough cleaning difficult.

The location had recently received a food hygiene rating of 4 from the food standards agency. The rating system, which is run in partnership with local authorities, gives clear information about businesses hygiene standards. The rating of 4 meant hygiene standards in the kitchen were good.

People told us that staff supported them with their medicines and as prescribed by their GP. Feedback included, “They are very good with prescribed medication.” And, “I only take tablets to make me feel better [vitamins].”

Staff told us they regularly liaised with health professionals for clinical advice and support.

Appropriate policies and procedures were in place for staff to follow to ensure the safe administration of medicines to people. However, procedures did not identify the management of prescribed creams had not consistently followed best practice. Staff received appropriate training. Competency checks were completed for staff responsible for administering medicines. Controlled drugs and eye drops were stored and administered following best practice. Controlled drugs are drugs which are dangerous or otherwise harmful and have the potential for abuse or misuse. We observed staff administering medicines. They did not consistently follow best practice. We spoke with the provider who spoke with the staff member and reviewed their competency. We observed the storage of prescribed creams. These were stored securely. However, some topical medicines had been opened they had not been dated to identify when they were no-longer suitable for use. Some cream labels were difficult to read. This meant there was a risk of people having topical medicines administered outside of their shelf-life. This was a concern that was noted at the previous inspection. The provider had systems to ensure creams were safely managed. However, process had not been consistently followed and governance systems had not identified these concerns. They said they would speak to all staff to promote compliance with the procedure.