Archived: Springfields Residential Home

.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Systems and processes supported people’s safety and risks were appropriately assessed.People were safely supported with their medicines and staff understood safe practice around this. Medicines were securely stored, although one person's controlled drugs were not stored separately and the registered provider agreed to review this. Staff understood how to safeguard people from harm, and there was a system for recording accidents and incidents. Premises and equipment were regularly checked for safety.

Staff completed regular training and engaged in supervision meetings with the provider.People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice People were supported to lead healthy lives and there were effective links with other professionals. People enjoyed the meals and took an active part in preparing these.

Staff were respectful of people’s privacy and dignity and there were good opportunities for people to be independent. There was a very friendly, homely atmosphere and people said they felt well cared for.

Care was person centred and people’s individual needs were promoted and respected. Care records showed individual preferences and we saw how people chose to follow their own preferred lifestyle.

The provider was very involved in people’s care and support and they knew each person well. There was open communication in the home and evidence of effective leadership and teamwork. Audits were in place and regular feedback was sought from people about the quality of the service. Documentation was securely filed, although at times we noted some outdated information, which the provider agreed to review.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Springfields is a small home that provides personal care for up to six people with mental health needs. On the day of the inspection there were six people living in the home.

The home had a registered manager who was also the registered provider. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People's safety was promoted well and people told us they felt safe living in the home.

People received their medicines on time and there were secure systems in place for medicines management.

Staff were supported appropriately through training and supervision to do their job, and they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager worked together with staff on a daily basis.

People enjoyed the food and mealtimes were sociable occasions. People told us how they had choices and were involved in food planning and preparation.

The provider and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and how to ensure people's rights were promoted. No one at the home was subject to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff were kind, respectful and caring and the environment was homely, friendly and welcoming.

People's choices were promoted well and there was evidence of strong person centred care.

There was an open and communicative culture in the home, with effective management and systems for assuring the quality of the service provision.

To help us gain an understanding of the service provided, we spoke with three relatives of people who used the service. All the relatives we spoke with provided good feedback about the service.

Overall, we found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

Through speaking with people who used the service, people's relatives and staff, we found people's needs had been met. However, this was not always reflected in the care records which meant people were not protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

We looked at two staff records to see how staff were recruited. We saw members of staff had an Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check in place. This is now referred to a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. We saw two references had been obtained prior to new staff commencing work to ensure they were of good character. This meant the provider had satisfied themselves that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults and children. We found appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

Staff we spoke with told us they had completed their mandatory training. This included: medication, safeguarding and infection control training. We saw evidence in the staff files to confirm this.

We found a number of the provider's policies had not been reviewed and did not contain review dates. This meant a number of policies were out of date. The provider's recruitment and complaints policies referred to obsolete government agencies and processes. This meant the provider's procedures may not reflect current legislation, practice and guidance.