Springfield Lodge

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.

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.

The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. Staff worked to achieve good outcomes for people. People’s needs were assessed, and care plans were developed to meet their individual needs. Reviews of care were regularly carried out and if required, external health professionals were involved to ensure care and support met best practice guidelines.

Staff worked with external health professionals and delivered care according to health professional’s instructions. If people had individual dietary needs, these were accommodated, and regular monitoring of people’s health took place to promote their wellbeing. People (or their representative) were involved in care planning and consent was sought before care was delivered. If restrictions were required, the service followed a legal framework to ensure these were lawful.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

People had access to their friends and families and the service supported these relationships. People gave examples of how staff respected their choices and promoted their independence.

It was clear from feedback received and observations during the assessment that staff were caring. A person living at the home said, “The staff are good, they are a good gang.” Staff respected people’s individual choices and made sure they engaged in their care, and treatment to ensure positive outcomes for people.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence services were organised so that they met people’s needs.

People received person centred care from a group of staff who knew people well. People and their families felt listened to by staff and involved in making decisions about their care.

The service worked closely with other health and social care professionals to provide a consistent service that was tailored to individual needs and preferences. This included any end of life decisions related to treatment and preferred places of care.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

There was no manager registered with CQC. The provider was leading and managing the service, introducing new processes and driving improvements.

Improvements had been made. People could be assured that governance systems were designed, used and monitored to improve the service provided. Any lessons learned were identified and shared with staff. Staff were supported by the management team and communicated changes and good practice to them to support positive outcomes for people. There was an open culture and team working was evident.