One adult social care inspector undertook the inspection of Springdale. At the time of the inspection there were 32 people using the service.We spoke with five people who used the service, three people's relatives, the registered manager and five care staff. We reviewed four people's care records and six staff files. We also reviewed a selection of other records that included four weeks of staff rotas, a training schedule, the provider's policies and procedures and audit results.
We used the evidence we collected during our inspection to answer five questions.
Is the service safe?
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), 2005, and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The MCA provides a framework to empower and protect people who may make key decisions about their care and support. The DoLS are used if extra restrictions or restraints are needed which may deprive a person of their liberty. At the time of this inspection no person was subject to a DoLS authorisation.
The people who used the service told us that they felt safe. The service had a safeguarding policy that made reference to the local authority's safeguarding procedures. Staff had received training in relation to safeguarding and could tell us about the different types of abuse. Staff had the appropriate security checks before they commenced employment at the service.
Mandatory training was up to date for all of the staff. The registered manager maintained a training schedule that showed when people's refresher training was due.
There were enough suitably experienced and qualified staff to meet people's needs. However, staff and some of the people who used the service told us that at times, more staff were required to meet people's needs in a timely manner. We highlighted this to the registered manager. They told us that they agreed more staff were required some of the time and were trying new staffing schedules.
There was an effective system in place to manage accidents and incidents. We saw evidence that these were audited by the manager and actions were taken to reduce the risk of further occurrences.
There were procedures in place to manage and mitigate foreseeable emergencies. These included procedures in relation to fire and evacuation and the loss of power. People had 'personal evacuation plans.' Staff we spoke with were aware of these.
Is the service effective?
People received effective, individualised care. People's needs had been discussed and assessed with them and they were involved in reviewing their care plans and risk assessments. Nationally recognised screening tools had been used to help identify people at risk of malnutrition and pressure ulcers. Staff we spoke with could tell us about the needs of the people they cared for. We observed positive interactions between staff and people.
There was evidence in people's care plans to show that the provider worked closely with other health and social care professionals. This included people's general practitioners, speech and language therapists and physiotherapists. This helped to ensure all of people's needs were met by the appropriate person.
Is the service caring?
People we spoke with told us that the staff were caring. One person said, 'All of the staff are lovely. Every one of them. They are so kind and caring. They help me with my personal care.' One person's relative said, 'I visit at all times of the day and I cannot fault this home. It is one of the best homes there are. All of the staff are lovely and kind. I have no concerns.'
At all times, we saw that staff were compassionate and respectful towards people. People had been actively involved in the planning of their care and could tell us what information was in their care plans. People who used the service told us that they were given choices about how they wished to spend their day or what they would like to eat. We observed that staff encouraged people to be independent but ensured they were safe and assisted them where necessary.
Relatives visited people throughout the day of our inspection. We saw that relatives were welcomed and staff interacted in a positive and supportive way with them.
Is the service responsive?
The care and support people received responded to their needs. The people we spoke with felt that they were well cared for and said that they thought staff knew their needs well. People's care plans were person-centred. This means that they were specific to people's individual needs. People's personal histories had been documented as well as their hobbies and interests. There were some activities for people to do in the afternoon and people told us that they enjoyed these. However, staff and some of the people we spoke with said that they felt there could be more to do in the afternoon. Staff told us that they wished they had more time to spend with people to help ensure their social needs were being met.
The environment responded to the different needs of people. There were television lounges, a quiet reading room and a large patio area with accessible gardens. All of the people we spoke with said that they thought the home 'had everything' they needed. They told us that staff assisted them to where they wished to spend their time. Everyone remarked on how 'splendid' the gardens were. We noted that all areas of the home, internal and external, were wheelchair accessible.
The service had a complaints policy and people told us that they knew how to complain. Although the service had not received any written complaints, there was evidence that the provider took account of any verbal concerns to improve the service.
There were processes in place to collect people's views about the care and support people received and we noted that these were acted on by the manager.
Is the service well-led?
The service was well-led. All of the staff we spoke with told us that they felt well supported and listened to by the manager. People who used the service and their relatives said that the manager was very approachable and always available to speak with.
We saw that there was a positive culture within the home and staff told us that they were encouraged to raise new ideas of working to help improve the quality of the service. Staff told us that the manager worked with them to deliver care and support at times. They said that they appreciated this and it helped to maintain positive working relations.
The manager was knowledgeable about each person who used the service and we saw them interact with people on an individual basis.
The service has a system in place for monitoring the quality of the service. This included audits in relation to care plans, medicines management and the reporting of accidents and incidents. The manager also held regular staff and 'residents' meetings to determine people's views about the service. We saw that the manager acted upon people's comments and suggestions appropriately.