Archived: Springfield Park Nursing Home

Updated 1 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 10 February 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of three adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service including notifications the provider had made to us. This helped to inform us what areas we would focus on as part of our inspection. We had requested the service to complete a provider information return (PIR); this is a form that asks the provider to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We received this prior to our inspection and used the information to help with planning.

We contacted the local authority safeguarding team, the local commissioning team and the local Healthwatch organisation to obtain views about the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. Healthwatch informed us that they had not received any feedback relating to Springfield Park Nursing Home.

During the inspection we also carried out observations in all public areas of the home and undertook a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) during the lunchtime meal period. A SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with eight people who used the service and four relatives. We also spoke with two qualified nurses, two senior care staff members, three care staff members, the cook, activities coordinator and deputy manager.

Updated 1 April 2016

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 10 February 2016. The service was last inspected on 12 November 2013 when we found it to be meeting all the regulations we reviewed.

Springfield Park Nursing Home is a large detached building that is situated in parkland. The home provides both nursing and personal care for up to 70 people. On the day of our inspection there were 66 people living in the service.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

During this inspection we found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The service was not following specific specialist nutritional advice that had been given in relation to a person’s nutritional requirements and how they were to be supported on a daily basis.

We have made a recommendation relating to the stimulation for people who use the service, particularly those living with dementia.

We have made a recommendation relating to the end of life wishes of people, particularly those from an ethnic background.

The service had a safeguarding policy and procedure in place. This gave staff clear examples of the types of abuse and signs that they needed to observe for and report on.

People who used the service had risk assessments in place for health related issues. We also saw environmental risk assessments had been completed to ensure the health and safety of people who used the service.

We found the registered manager followed robust recruitment processes and ensured relevant checks had been undertaken prior to new staff commencing. This ensured their suitability to work in the service.

Medicines within the service were managed safely. Only staff that were trained were permitted to administer medicines and their competencies were checked on a regular basis. The service had a medicines policy and procedure in place for staff to follow.

We observed the service to be clean and tidy and free from offensive odours. Sufficient quantities of personal protective equipment (PPE), including disposable gloves and aprons were available for staff members.

We saw people could choose where they wished to eat their meals. This included a choice of three dining rooms or to remain in their bedrooms.

Records showed that those people who were able to had consented to their care and treatment. For those who lacked capacity we saw that best interest meetings had been held with the relevant people and decisions made in the person’s best interest.

We saw some corridors were brightly decorated with travel paintings, posters, poems and personal pictures of people who used the service and their families. Corridors were wide enough for people who used wheelchairs to manoeuvre easily and access all areas of the service.

One staff member told us they treated all the people who used the service the way they would want to be cared for. Another staff member told us in their opinion the service passes the ‘mums test’.

Quality assurance systems that were in place were sufficiently robust to identify areas for improvement. We saw a number of audits were undertaken within the service such as, medicines, falls and cleaning.

Records showed that staff meetings and service user meetings were held on a regular basis. These gave people the opportunity to comment on the service and highlight any issues, compliments or concerns.