Springfield Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People and, where appropriate, family members were fully involved in decisions relating to their care. Family were kept informed about any changes in care or treatment. We observed all the staff knew each person well. People were called by name and staff were responsive to people’s needs. We observed staff communicating clearly with 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.

People told us most staff understood their needs and preferences.

Staff felt they had the required information to provide peoples' care in a personalised way. Staff and leaders confirmed there was a difference in culture between the two houses in how staff worked together to meet people's needs. Staff told us they supported people to feedback on their care. Staff told us this was done informally during their regular interactions with people and relatives.

Staff in both houses understood people's care needs. We observed staff in house 72 did not communicate as much with people during lunch on both days, they were more task focused in their approach. This resulted in the atmosphere at lunch not being as positive and enjoyable as in house 74. Staff in house 74 seemed to be more person centred when providing people's care and better at promoting people's choice and communication. Care records and records in rooms contained conflicting information about IDDSI requirements. For example, one person was served a meal which did not reflect their IDDSI requirements. Another person's care plan and nutrition plan contained contradictory information for staff about whether they were at risk from malnutrition. Staff recorded the amount of fluids people drunk but not always the amount of food they ate i.e. all, 3/4, 1/2 or 1/4. Therefore, it was not clear if they had eaten their whole meal, which would be particularly relevant if they were at risk of dehydration or malnutrition .

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.