Springfield Retirement Home provides care and accommodation for up to 15 people. At the time of the inspection 13 people were living at the home. The home is situated in the Bare area of Morecambe. It is close to a number of facilities and amenities. The building is on two floors with a stair lift for access to the first floor. The Promenade and Happy Mount Park are within easy reach.

Springfield Retirement Home is a ‘care home.’ People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, both of which we looked at during this inspection.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

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

During the inspection visit we observed staff provided support for people in a sensitive and caring way. For example one person who lived at the home said, “Very caring and respectful they treat everyone so well.” A relative wrote in a survey ‘Excellent care’.

Risk assessments in care records of people who lived at Springfield had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. Care records showed they were reviewed and any changes had been recorded.

We looked around the building and found it had been maintained, was clean and a safe place for people to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required. Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection. We found supplies were available for staff to use when required. Medication documentation in care plans provided staff with a good understanding about specific requirements of each person who lived at Springfield. Also staff had relevant training to assist them in the safe administration of medicines. This was confirmed by talking with staff.

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.

We confirmed people who lived at the home had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met. Care records seen confirmed visits to and from General Practitioners (GP’s) and other healthcare professionals had been recorded.

People who lived at the home spoke positively about the standard of food provided. People only made positive comments about the quality of meals and food provided. They included, “Food is very good. We are fortunate to have a very good cook.”

Staff knew people they supported and provided a personalised service in a caring way. This was confirmed by talking with people who lived at the home and relatives. Care plans were organised and had identified care and support people required. We found by conversations with staff they had a good understanding of protecting and respecting people’s human rights. They were able to describe the importance of respecting each person as an individual. One staff member said, “The culture at this home is everyone is treated the same way with compassion and care no matter what background or religion they are.”

People who lived at the home told us there were a variety of activities which were organised for their entertainment. These included exercise classes, dominoes, entertainers from the community and film afternoons with refreshments. One person who lived at the home said, “Sometimes if I come in the afternoon they have all sorts of activities going on.”

We found there wa

The inspection was led by two inspectors. Information we gathered during the inspection helped answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Care and support was provided in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We saw there were enough staff on the inspection to support people as they needed. People were treated with respect and dignity with staff assisting people in a sensitive manner. People had the choice of spending time on their own or in the communal areas. One person said, “The staff are really good. They deal with us beautifully. Staff give us support just as we request and they answer any bells quickly.”

Systems were in place to make sure that provider and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and in how to submit one.

Service contracts were in place. Maintenance records we looked at showed that regular safety checks were carried out. Any repairs were completed quickly and safely. These measures ensured equipment in the home was maintained.

Is the service effective?

People confirmed that they were able to see their visitors in private and that friends and relatives could visit whenever they wished. We saw one person was supported by staff to visit their home and family frequently. Relatives said they were always made welcome when they visited their family member. One person told us, “The staff make sure we have privacy with our visitors if we want it.” A relative told us, “Mum has a key to her own room so she can lock her personal things away. It makes her feel secure.”

The care records seen were person centred and informative. They showed the health needs, care and support needs and the likes, dislikes and routines of the person.

Risk assessments were in place and had been regularly updated to reflect the changes in support needed. We saw evidence that changes in health were noted, records updated and the advice of other professionals sought. This assisted staff in providing appropriate care and support.

The individual needs of people were taken into account with the layout of the home enabling people to move around freely and safely. The premises were suitable to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.

Is the service caring?

People told us that the staff were kind and willing. They said they responded quickly to any requests for help and supported them as they wanted. One person said, “I am happy here. The staff here are kind and help us when we need it.” A relative said about the care of their family member, “The staff have been really great with her. She is very settled.”

We saw lunch and the evening meal being served. The mealtimes were relaxed and unhurried. Staff were attentive and supported people appropriately as they assisted them with their meals.

Care plans were being maintained, and regularly updated, recording the care and support people were receiving. People and their relatives had been involved in collecting and updating this information. This helped all involved to have clear and detailed information on how to support people effectively.

Staff checked in residents meetings and also informally whether people were satisfied with the care provided and if they had ideas for any changes.

Is the service responsive?

Staff respected the diverse needs of people. Religious, cultural, sexual orientation and other diverse needs were taken into account when planning care and these were met as people wanted. Staff assisted people with personal care discretely and sensitively and in a timely manner. We observed people involved in daily living activities, social and leisure activities or chatting with staff. People said that they enjoyed the activities.

Any extra hours of staffing needed were covered with the staff team quickly and safely, even in an emergency. Staff told us that they were always willing to change shifts to make sure there were enough staff to look after people well. One member of staff said, “The manager will put extra staff on if resident’s needs change.”

People and their relatives said they were asked their opinion about their care and the home. One person told us, “We have our meeting to talk about things we like and anything we are not happy with. The staff always ask our opinion and they listen to us.” A relative told us, “I have spoken to the staff if not happy with things. Things are dealt with very quickly.”

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records showed that any identified problems were addressed.

Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities and of the ethos of the home. They felt that they worked together effectively. Staff had regular meetings so were involved in decisions about the home. There were also regular residents meetings where people could discuss their view of the home and any changes they would like in care or routines.

We were notified of any incidents or issues relating to the home in a timely manner.

We spoke individually with the manager and staff at Springfield Retirement Home. We also discussed care with relatives and people living at the home. We reviewed care records, policies and procedures, audits and risk assessment documentation.

The service demonstrated good practice that ensured people were cared for in a supportive and dignified manner. One person told us, “I’m happy as I can be here. I miss my home, but know I have to be here where I get cared for properly”. Another person said, “I’m very glad I came here, the staff are extremely kind and caring”.

Additionally, care records were of a good standard. Care plans and risk assessments were signed and regularly reviewed. Daily records demonstrated where other providers had been involved in people’s care. This showed good communication within the home.

The home had thorough practices in place to maintain secure premises for the safety of people living and working there. People were recruited appropriately because the home had followed its procedures. One staff member told us, “I’m very happy here”. Springfield Retirement Home additionally had appropriate processes in place to monitor the quality of its service.

We spoke with the manager, three staff and three people who were receiving care at Springfield Retirement Home. We also spoke to 3 relatives about the care that was being delivered. This helped us to gain a balanced view of what people experienced when receiving care at the home.

People who used the service felt staff were supportive and listened to them. One person said, "Whenever I need support the staff are there. They are so kind". Another person told us, "I get embarrassed, but they put me at ease and help me".

We observed the interaction between the staff and the people who used the service. We observed that staff were respectful of people and treated them with dignity. We saw staff knocking on people's bedroom doors before entering. We also saw staff talking with people in a courteous manner.

We looked at three people's care records. Although these contained individualised care plans, we were told that people who used the service initialled them. There were no signatures or formal identification of people consenting to their treatment.

Most staff explained how they obtain consent verbally, but acknowledged that this was not recorded. Additionally, staff had not received Mental Capacity training that would assist in better understanding consent.

One person we spoke to told us that they thought the home to be comfortable and inviting, and clean. Another said that there is good access for people who use a wheelchair or a walking frame. One person said that before they moved in they were able to look at the room they were being offered which made them happy and satisfied that it was right for them.

This unannounced inspection took place on 09 & 16 November 2015.

Springfield Retirement Home provides care and accommodation for up to 15 people. The home is situated in the Bare area of Morecambe. It is close to a number of community facilities and amenities. The Promenade and Happy Mount Park are within easy reach. Accommodation is provided over two floors and there is a stair lift available. There were thirteen people living at the home on the day of inspection.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

The service was last inspected 08 September 2014. We identified no concerns at this inspection and found the provider was meeting all standards that we assessed.

At this inspection, people who lived at the home spoke highly about the quality of service provision on offer. Feedback from relatives and visitors was also positive.

People were safe. People told us they felt safe and secure. Suitable arrangements were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff were trained to be able to identify abuse and were aware of processes for reporting it.

The registered manager had suitable systems in place to ensure medicines were administered and stored safely.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff were correctly vetted before being employed. Staff retention was good and people said they benefited from staff who knew them well.

The registered manager had a training and development plan to ensure staff were equipped with the necessary skills to enable them to carry out effective care. When people’s health needs changed, additional training was provided by the registered manager.

People had a detailed care plan in place which described their support needs and personal wishes. We saw plans had been reviewed by senior members of staff in conjunction with the staff team. Managers were given administrative time to update plans at regular intervals. People who lived at the home, relatives and health professionals were involved in the developing and reviewing of care plans wherever appropriate.

People who lived at the home, family members and health professionals we spoke with were confident people’s health needs were met in a timely manner and referrals to health practitioners were made when appropriate. Families were kept informed of any changes to people’s health needs.

Suitable systems were in place to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration. People who lived at the home said the food was good. Weights of people who lived at the home were closely monitored and records kept. Any concerns were relayed to health professionals for further interventions. People at risk of malnourishment were supported discreetly and gently at meal times.

People who lived at the home praised the registered manager and the staff team, stating they were all caring and hardworking. During the course of the inspection, we observed numerous positive interactions between staff and people who lived at the home. The atmosphere within the home was light hearted and we observed people laughing and joking throughout the inspection.

Staff felt supported within their role and praised the knowledge and dedication of the registered manager. Praise for the registered manager was also received by family members and people who lived at the home.

The registered manager had audit systems in place to ensure premises were suitably maintained. As part of quality assurance processes the registered manager also monitored complaints and residents feedback. The registered manager had a system in place for recording and investigating complaints. However there had been no recorded complaints.

Staff were positive about their work and confirmed they were supported by the manager. Staff described teamwork as “Good.” Both staff and people who lived at the home described the home as a good place to live.