Springfield Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

There were governance systems in place to ensure the service was continuously evaluated. These were effective in identifying any shortfalls or issues we identified or witnessed during this assessment. Any concerns that were identified were actioned in a timely manner. Staff understood their role and responsibilities. The management team were accountable for the actions, behaviours, and performance of staff. Data or notifications were consistently submitted to external organisations as regulation required. The management team worked in partnership with local authorities and quality teams to improve the quality of care and service provided for people.

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.

Staff we spoke with shared the values and vision for Springfield Care Home. Staff and the management team understood the importance of listening to the views of people and their relatives about the service. One staff member said, “Since the new management structure has been in place, massive improvements in terms of management support, residents care & general morale at the home.”

Processes ensured staff had a shared vision with the management team and values regarding the care and support they provided. People and their relatives had been provided with clear information on how to raise suggestions and concerns about the service. Surveys were sent out regularly to seek people’s views about the service, enabling them to contribute to its development. We saw any discrepancies or issues were acted upon in a timely manner. Risk assessment and care planning processes resulted in care plans acknowledging people’s diverse needs.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager, and management team. They said they were able to raise any issues or concerns as the registered manager had an ‘open door policy’. This meant staff at any time could speak with them. A member of staff said, “Since [Registered manager] has been in charge massive improvements in terms of management support. Residents care and general morale at the home is very good.” A recent staff survey provided a high percentage of positive comments about working at the home and the management team.

The management team had systems in place and allocated tasks to seniors and other members of the management team. For example, writing staff rotas, auditing of policies and reviewing care plans. The registered manager then checked to ensure these tasks had been completed and any issues identified had been actioned.

Staff told us they knew were aware of the whistleblowing policy and knew how to raise concerns. A staff member said, “I have done safeguarding training, and confident what process to follow if I witnessed any abuse.” Staff were also aware they could report and concerns directly to the Care Quality Commission and the local safeguarding teams.

Processes and systems were in place for staff, people and relatives to follow should they have any issues or concerns they wanted to report in confidence and anonymously.

Staff felt the management team took into account their equality, diversity and inclusion and treated people equally and fairly. For example, where staff needed to work in a flexible way, this was discussed with the registered manager and changes to their working pattern would be made. This was confirmed by talking to staff. Staff felt the management team and their colleagues provided them with a good work life balance. One staff member said, “Very supportive, always flexible if we need to have time off or change working days because of any issues.”.

The management team had policies and procedures around equality, diversity and inclusion. We found guidance and information was also available in the employee’s handbook. Systems were in place for attending regular staff and relative/resident meetings. People told us these meetings were productive and enabled them to openly raise issues and concerns.

Staff we spoke to confirmed they had received competency checks, for example when administering medication and moving and handling. This enabled staff to develop their skills and ensure the safety of people was maintained. One staff member said, “Yes we receive updates for current guidance and training updates.”

Quality monitoring processes were in place and completed consistently. Audits such as competency checks for medicines and the building had been undertaken and the management team. They had oversight on the quality of care people were receiving. Where audits such as domestic checks and daily walk rounds had been completed, we found any identified issues found had been actioned in a timely manner.

No evidence looked at.

People and relatives told us staff assisted them in arranging support from other healthcare services as required.

The management team and staff collaborated with relevant professionals and agencies. For example, district nurses and general practitioners. Staff communicated and recorded information provided from health professionals when they visited people. This was confirmed by a recent local authority contract monitoring exercise.

Systems were in place to work with relevant partners to improve the standard and care of people at the home.

Staff told us they felt they were involved in decisions and encouraged to share ideas to continue the development of Springfield Care home. The registered manager had recently been in post told us plans they had to introduce further monitoring and embedding of good practices will continue to be developed and put in place. We evidenced this during the inspection and able to review the changes made. For example, more in depth auditing in order to identify and improve Springfield Care home for people.

Systems and processes to support learning and improvement in people’s care were in place. For example, incidents and accidents were reported and investigated with recommended outcomes followed. We evidenced processes and reporting of action that learning for the future had taken place, and new ways of supporting had been adapted.