This inspection took place on 14 and 24 August 2017 and was unannounced.

Springfield Care Home was last inspected in August 2015 and was rated Good. At this inspection, the service remained Good.

The provider is registered to provide accommodation for up to 40 older people living with or without dementia in the service over two floors. There were 24 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

A registered manager was in post and was available throughout the 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.

Staff knew how to keep people safe and understood their duty to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks were managed so that people were protected from avoidable harm.

Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices. Medicines were managed safely and staff generally followed correct infection control practices.

Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisal. People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received sufficient to eat and drink but their mealtime experience could be improved. External professionals were involved in people’s care as appropriate but further adaptations could be made to the design of the home to better support people living with dementia.

Staff were kind and knew people well. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care. Advocacy information was made available to people.

People generally received care that respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence. However, some dignity issues were observed.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care records contained information to support staff to meet people’s individual needs, though activities could be further improved. A complaints process was in place and staff knew how to respond to complaints.

People and their relatives were involved or had opportunities to be involved in the development of the service. Staff told us they would be confident raising concerns with the management team and that appropriate action would be taken.

The registered manager and provider were meeting their regulatory responsibilities. There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

This inspection took place on 14 and 24 August 2017 and was unannounced.

Springfield Care Home was last inspected in August 2015 and was rated Good. At this inspection, the service remained Good.

The provider is registered to provide accommodation for up to 40 older people living with or without dementia in the service over two floors. There were 24 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

A registered manager was in post and was available throughout the 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.

Staff knew how to keep people safe and understood their duty to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks were managed so that people were protected from avoidable harm.

Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices. Medicines were managed safely and staff generally followed correct infection control practices.

Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisal. People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received sufficient to eat and drink but their mealtime experience could be improved. External professionals were involved in people’s care as appropriate but further adaptations could be made to the design of the home to better support people living with dementia.

Staff were kind and knew people well. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care. Advocacy information was made available to people.

People generally received care that respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence. However, some dignity issues were observed.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care records contained information to support staff to meet people’s individual needs, though activities could be further improved. A complaints process was in place and staff knew how to respond to complaints.

People and their relatives were involved or had opportunities to be involved in the development of the service. Staff told us they would be confident raising concerns with the management team and that appropriate action would be taken.

The registered manager and provider were meeting their regulatory responsibilities. There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

This service was inspected by a single adult social care inspector. In order to answer the questions below we spoke with four staff and nine people who used the service. We also reviewed four people’s care records.

If you wish to look at our findings in detail please see the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were supported in a clean environment.

People told us they were happy with the care that had been delivered and said they felt able to approach staff with any concerns or complaints they had.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people and there was always a senior member of staff on duty to manage any emergencies.

Staff were trained in safeguarding and whistleblowing and were confident to raise any concerns.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

Staff had a good understanding of people’s care needs. Staff told us their training was useful for them to support people to the best of their abilities. The service monitored the quality of care by the use of regular audits.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff listened to people when they were with them. People told us they were not rushed. One person told us, “The girls are very nice.” People confirmed to us staff offered them choices of a range of activities every afternoon.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the service. Care records described how people wanted to be supported. Care was provided in accordance with each person’s wishes. Care records were reviewed monthly and updated where necessary.

People had access to activities which were important to them. Systems were in place to allow people choice, involvement and as much independence as possible.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager. There was a clear quality assurance system in place and staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere to the service when we visited.

We spoke with six people who lived in the home. They all told us that staff were very friendly and always helped them.

We spoke with two relatives who stated they had been very satisfied with the service. One relative said; ‘’staff could not be better. They are all very friendly and caring ‘’.

We carried out a short observational framework inspection. This is an inspection method whereby we sit and observe life in the home to see if people were treated properly and their needs were met. We found that staff were friendly, helpful and caring.

This was a mixed inspection. People living in the home we spoke with and two relatives told us said that the care that staff supplied was very good. We observed a number of positive staff practices. However, we also found that people's care needs were not always met because of issues with care planning and medication had not always been kept securely.

There were a number of suggestions: to have more frequent residents and relatives meetings, to reintroduce the cafe that had been available in the past, to have more activities and individual photograph books to stimulate people with dementia.

We spoke with four people using the service. They told us staff treated them with dignity and respected their privacy. They told us staff encouraged them to be independent.

People using the service told us they did not know if they had a care plan. Three people told us they had not been involved in reviewing their care and had not been asked for their views on the service. One person told us they and their relative had been involved and said their relative had discussed their care with staff.

People using the service told us they experienced care that met their needs and they felt safe. They told us staff communicated well with them. One person told us, “The girls and everybody are wonderful.” They told us they felt safe and would talk to staff if they had any concerns. They told us they felt their belongings and finances were protected.

People using the service told us the building was well maintained. One person said, “It’s beautiful.” They told us they were happy with their bedrooms and did not want any improvements to be made. They told us staff were well trained and good at their jobs. One person told us, “They know their job.” They told us their needs were met. Two people told us there were enough staff. One person told us, “Maybe there could be a bit more”, but said their needs were met. Another person told us, “They could do with a bit of extra staff” and said staff were busy at night supporting people going to bed, but told us they never felt unsafe.

Three people told us they had a say in how the service was run and managed. One person did not know if they had a say. Three people told us they had the opportunity to offer feedback on the service and felt listened to, but told us they had not been given any feedback forms to complete. Three people told us they did not know about residents meetings, but one person said, “Things are discussed with other residents” and, “We discuss things together”. They told us the service was good. One person told us, “I think it’s top, first class as far as I’m concerned.” Another person said, “It always seems nice and fine. It’s all working well.”

People told us they were happy with their care at Springfield. They said that they play games most afternoons. We observed some people listening to music, some were playing games and others were colouring pictures.

One person said, "The staff look after me and they are careful when they wash me."

People living there and two relatives told us that there were always enough staff around to help people.

When we visited we saw some staff attending to some people’s needs. Some people told us that they knew the care staff had information about how to meet their needs. Some relatives told us they had been consulted.

Some people told us that they felt safe in the home. Many of the people living in the home had needs relating to dementia and some showed signs of anxiety. We saw staff speaking to people reassuringly and respectfully. Some people told us that the staff were helpful and kind.

We saw people and their relatives making use of the new café. They told us they enjoyed having a cup of tea there.