Springfield House provides personal care for up to 69 older people, including people living with dementia. Nursing care is not provided at the home. At the time of our inspection there were 65 people living at the home.

At the last inspection in August 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care provided at the home and the caring approach of the staff team. We saw staff supported people with kindness and understanding.

People, relatives and staff told us they felt the home was a safe place. They also felt sufficient staff were deployed in order to meet people’s needs.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding and whistle blowing including how to report concerns.

There were effective recruitment procedures in place. This included pre-employment checks to ensure new staff were suitable to work at the home.

Medicines were managed safely. Trained staff administered people’s medicines. Records accurately accounted for the medicines people had been given.

Regular health and safety checks were carried out and up to date procedures were in place to deal with emergency situations.

Incidents and accidents were logged and investigated. Records confirmed appropriate action had been taken to prevent recurrence and help keep people safe.

Staff said they were usually well supported and were able to access the training they needed.

People were supported to meet their individual nutritional and healthcare needs.

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.

The home had been specially adapted to suit the needs of people living with dementia.

People’s needs had been assessed and personalised care plans developed. Care plans were evaluated to check they reflected people’s needs. People had the opportunity to be involved in the review.

There were opportunities for people to participate in activities. This included crafts, reminiscing, sing a longs, chats, snakes and ladders, bingo and chair aerobics.

Although people and relatives gave us positive feedback, they also knew how to make a complaint if needed. Previous complaints received had been investigated in accordance with the provider’s policy.

The service had a registered manager. They had been re-located temporarily to support another home. The provider advised they were due to return to Springfield House imminently. People and staff told us the registered manager was supportive and approachable.

The provider had a structured approach to quality assurance. Regular audits were carried out to help ensure people received good support. These were up to date at the time of this inspection.

People and relatives had given very positive feedback during the last consultation carried out. Where minor issues had been raised, evidence was available to show action had been taken to make improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

People, and the representatives or advocates of people who used the service were positive about the care and support provided. Comments included “I love it here” and “I am cared for very well by the staff”.

We spoke with 12 people who received care and support. We found people were given all the information they needed to make an informed decision about their care and were asked to provide their consent to such care.

We saw people were cared for effectively and care was planned for the individual.

We saw people were safe and protected from abuse.

We saw there was sufficient staff to provide care and support.

The provider had an effective system in place to record and monitor complaints. Complaints were taken seriously and responded to appropriately.

We spoke to nine people who used the service and a relative who said they were pleased with the care and support provided by the home. They said the staff were always polite and cheerful. They also said they were kind and caring.

One person said; "There isn't anything I'm not happy with."

Two visitors were sitting in the coffee area. They said they enjoyed visiting the home and they had enrolled as members so they could use facilities such as the restaurant and health and well being facilities. They were anxious to book for Christmas lunch.

People said it was a lovely environment. They said they were given appropriate information and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People told us staff treated them with respect and courtesy. One person said, "They always ask me my opinion and explain what is happening."

People told us they were well cared for. One person said, "The staff are very good." We found that care was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people’s safety and welfare.

Staff received professional development and people told us staff were well trained.

We saw the provider had systems in place to gather feedback from people, who used the service, and to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service people received.

The inspection took place on 18 and 20 August 2015 and was unannounced. This means the provider did not know we were coming. We last inspected Springfield House in August 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting the legal requirements in force at the time.

Springfield House provides personal care for up to 69 older people, including people with dementia related conditions. Nursing care is not provided at the home. At the time of our inspection there were 70 people living at the home.

A manager was in post who had applied to become the registered manager. 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.

We found that care was delivered safely and appropriate steps were taken to protect people from being harmed. Staff were trained in and understood the importance of their duty of care to safeguard people against the risk of abuse.

People living at the home confirmed they felt safe with the staff who cared for them. The home was clean, comfortable and well equipped. Safety checks were conducted to ensure people received care in a safe environment.

People were supported to meet their health needs and access health care professionals, including specialist support. Medicines were managed safely to promote people’s health and well-being.

There was a varied menu with choices and people told us they enjoyed the food. Nutritional needs and risks were closely monitored and people were supported with eating and drinking where necessary. A new process had been introduced to provide people who had a pureed diet with more appetising meals.

New staff were suitably checked and vetted before they were employed. There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide people with continuity of care and to support the running of the home. The staffing ratio had been increased to enhance the care of people living at the home.

Staff were well supported in their roles and met people’s needs effectively. Further training was being undertaken and staff were given regular supervision to support their personal development.

People were consulted about and were able to direct their care and support. Formal processes were followed to uphold the rights of those people unable to make important decisions about their care, or who needed to be deprived of their liberty to receive the care they required.

Staff knew people well and the ways they preferred their care to be given. People and their relatives told us the staff were kind, caring and respectful in their approach. Our observations confirmed this and we saw people were cared for with dignity and treated as individuals.

A range of methods were used that enabled people and their families to express their views about their care and the service they received. Any concerns or complaints were taken seriously and properly investigated.

Care was flexible and responsive to people’s needs. Assessments of needs and risks were carried out and care plans were in place and regularly reviewed. Recording standards were being addressed to ensure care plans consistently reflected the personalised care provided. A variety of activities were made available to encourage stimulation and help people meet their social needs.

The management arrangements ensured good leadership and the home had an open and inclusive culture. Robust systems were operated to monitor and develop the quality of the service, including acting on feedback and checking the care that people experienced.