Springfield House

“The service operates from the ground floor of a remote farmhouse, while members of the family who run the service live on the first floor. Three members of the same family make up the main staff team, supported by a small number of bank staff. Another family member runs the on‑site farm, and people living at the service have regular contact with the animals. The service also has access to a minibus, which is used to support people to travel and take part in activities in the community.”

“During this announced assessment, we assessed the quality statements under all key questions; safe, caring, effective, responsive and well-led.”

“We undertook this responsive assessment to follow up concerns we had received in relation to governance, consent and recruitment records.”

“At this assessment, the service was in breach of 4 legal regulations in relation to consent, safe care and treatment, person centred care and good governance.”

“Risks to people were not always assessed, monitored or managed effectively. Environmental safety checks were not always completed, and some areas of the home required urgent improvement, including fire safety arrangements. Recruitment processes were not robust, and staffing information such as rotas, employment documents and supervision arrangements were not consistently in place. Governance systems were not strong enough to identify and address shortfalls, and leaders had limited oversight of risk and quality. Care planning, capacity assessments and best interest decision making were inconsistent, which meant the provider could not always demonstrate people’s rights and preferences had been fully considered.”

“Care and support were not always personalised. People did not have individual activity plans, goals or aspirations documented, and opportunities to build independence or develop skills were not consistently explored. People also did not always have reliable ways to alert staff at night, which created a potential risk of delayed support.”

“However, we observed people receiving warm, caring and respectful interactions from staff. The atmosphere in the home was calm and friendly, and people told us they felt safe and happy living there. Medicines were generally well managed, and the provider acted quickly when issues were identified. The environment was clean and staff worked well with external health and social care professionals to support people’s needs. The provider had also recently engaged with the local authority quality team and had begun making improvements to governance processes and documentation.”

“We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.”

“We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.”