Springfields is a small care home providing personal care for up to six people with mental health needs. There were six people living in the home at the time of the inspection. At our last inspection in December 2015 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

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 Documentation was securely filed, although at times we noted some outdated information, which the provider agreed to review.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

The inspection was carried out on 30 December 2015 and was unannounced. There was one adult social care inspector. The previous inspection was on 21 October 2014 and there had been a breach in regulation 9 because people's choices were not fully promoted or reflected in their care plans. We saw the provider had taken action to address this matter.

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.

This inspection took place on 21 October 2014 and was unannounced.  At the last inspection on 6 January 2014 there was a breach in regulation which related to records regarding people’s care and treatment, policies and procedures and staff supervision. The provider sent us an action plan which showed improvements would be made by 28 February 2014 and we found this action had been completed.

Springfields is a small home that provides personal care for up to six people with mental health needs.  On the day of our inspection there were six people living in the home. Accommodation is provided in single bedrooms, two of which have ensuite facilities. There is a lounge, dining room, kitchen and laundry as well as bathroom and toilet facilities. There is a garden to the rear of the property.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe at the home. Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood how to recognise and report any abuse. Staffing levels were sufficient which meant people were supported with their care and enabled to pursue interests of their choice in the community.  Staff supported people so that risks were managed with minimal restrictions. Safe systems ensured people received their medicines when they needed them.

No-one at the home was subject to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained and had an awareness of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People had good relationships with staff, who were kind and caring in their approach. People were given choices in their daily routine and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were supported to be independent in many aspects of their lives, however people’s involvement in decisions about the planning, shopping and preparation of meals was limited. People’s nutritional needs were met and they received the health care support they required.

Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of people’s needs and were trained and supported in their roles. People told us they were happy with the care they received, which we saw was tailored to meet their needs. However, this was not reflected in the care plans we saw which required more information to make sure people received consistent care.  People had not been involved in the care planning process which meant their preferences were not recorded.  

The registered manager worked alongside staff in the home on a daily basis providing support and guidance.  Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. Staff told us they felt well supported and said they would be happy for their relative to live in the home.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We spoke with two people who used the service. We attempted to speak with a third person but they did not wish to speak with us. Although they did tell us they were ‘ok’. Both people told us they knew who to complain to if they were unhappy with anything. One person commented: “I can go out when I want. I go to the shops. It’s alright here but I get a bit bored sometimes.” Another person told us: “Staff are ok.”

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.

We spoke with four people who use the service.

People told us that they understand the care and support they need and were able to explain this to us.

People spoken with were very complimentary about the care provided. One person said, “The staff are good and very helpful.” Another person commented “I really like the staff and being here.”

People spoken with said they have never had any concerns during their time at the home and had confidence that any issues would be dealt with immediately by the manager.

The four people spoken with were all complimentary about the staff team and told us they receive good support. We were also told that there is always a member of staff available if people need to access them for any kind of support.

People were encouraged to be involved in decision-making about the running of the home. They told us they are periodically asked to complete information about different aspects of the home so that any areas for improvement can be made.