The Springs Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment we did not assess all quality statements within this key question. The overall rating for this key question remains good based on the findings at the last inspection. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people and their support needs, however this was not always reflected in people's care plans. For example, 1 persons communication information was not up to date with the support they required and they did not have the appropriate external support available to ensure their choices and preferences could be heard. Another person's care plan did not have all of the relevant guidance for staff on how to provide consistent approach to support their anxious behaviours.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not always involved in decisions about their assessed needs and relatives confirmed this. However, relatives told us they were kept up to date regarding their family members care needs and changes to their medicines.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people and their support needs, however this was not always reflected in people's care plans. For example, 1 person’s communication information was not up to date with the support they currently received. We shared this with the management team who started to take action during the assessment.

People’s care needs and risk assessments had been reviewed, but did not always offer detailed information to support peoples specific bowel management needs. This may prevent staff to identifying when action may be needed. However, where people required additional support and monitoring, external agencies had been referred to for more comprehensive treatment. For example, People who had wounds, had care plans in place, this included wound assessments. Staff recorded dimensions of wounds and photographs were taken at every assessment. Wound assessments reviewed evidenced improvement, The home had also been liaising with the tissue viability nurse who provided support and guidance when required.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People and relative comments were mainly positive and demonstrated people had access to external health professionals as well as staff promoting independence. People told us “I don’t recall seeing a doctor, a woman does my nails". Relatives told us “The Occupational Therapist came and gave my family member a walking frame. They told us about a GP change but no visit yet ”. Another relative told us, “A doctor came a few months ago, a chiropodist comes regularly. They have also seen the dentist”.

Staff discussed people’s health and care needs in a daily huddle meeting. Staff shared updates on visiting professionals, referrals which may need to be made, and updates on people’s clinical needs and how these could be shared with the team.

There was evidence in people's care plans of referrals made to external professionals for chiropody, GP, district nurse’s, occupational therapists, falls team tissue viability nurses and dentists.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Where people were able to, they said they were happy with the way care was provided to them. One person told us " I am free to do anything I like. Another person said, ‘The girls give me very good support’. ‘Nothing is too much trouble, I just ask them and they usually do it”. Generally, families spoke positively about being consulted when changes were made to their loved one's care, although they had not been part of the care plan processes.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DOLS). There was evidence referrals had been made and where conditions had been authorised, these were detailed in people’s care plans. The provider used a tracker to have oversight of when people’s assessments needed reviewing. The providers admission policy outlined how they will assess people’s capacity and who would need to be involved in the process. We shared information with the provider regarding 1 person where a restriction had been placed, but there was lack of information following a best interest decision. The provider updated the persons care plan to reflect how the decision had been made and who had been involved.