We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ryde Cottage on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Ryde Cottage, you can give feedback on this service.
This inspection took place on 2 and 12 November 2018 and was unannounced. The gap in the inspection dates was due the availability of key people, including the people who lived at the service.
Accommodation was arranged over two floors which could be accessed by a staircase. There was an open plan communal area for social interaction and a quiet room for people to use if required. People also had access to an enclosed garden which had seating and tables available.
The home has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
We last inspected the service in October 2017 when we did not identify any breaches of regulation, but rated the service as 'Requires improvement'. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made.
At the time of the inspection there was not a registered manager in post at the service, there was a manager who had taken over the overall running of the service who had applied to the Care Quality Commission to become registered to manage the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.
People felt safe living at Ryde Cottage. Staff knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. Safeguarding investigations were completed and actions were taken in a timely why when safeguarding concerns were raised with the service.
There were sufficient staff employed to meet people's needs; keep them safe and provide them with person-centred support. Appropriate recruitment procedures were in place to ensure only suitable staff were employed.
Individual and environmental risks to people were managed effectively. Risk assessments identified risks to people and provided clear guidance to staff on how risks should be managed and mitigated.
Arrangements were in place for the safe management of medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed. The home was clean and staff followed best practice guidance to control the risk and spread of infection.
People received effective care from staff who were competent, suitably trained and supported in their roles. Staff acted in the best interests of people and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights and freedom.
Staff understood people’s health needs and people had access to health professionals and other specialists if they needed them. Procedures were in place to help ensure that people received consistent support when the moved between services.
People were provided with individualised, person-centred care. Care plans contained detailed information to enable staff to provide care and support in a personalised way. People were empowered to make choices about all aspects of their lives. They had access to a range of activities suited to their individual interests.
Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and were sensitive to their individual choices. People were treated with dignity and respect and staff protected people’s privacy.
The management team and staff worked collaboratively with other health and social care professionals to help ensure there was a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of effective care and support.
People, their families and staff had the opportunity to become involved in developing the service.
There were robust auditing and quality assurance processes to place to allow ongoing learning and development.
There was a registered manager in place at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.
The provider’s quality and safety monitoring systems were not fully effective in identifying and directing the service to act upon risks to people who used the service and ensuring the quality of service provision.
Staff sought consent from people before providing care. However, people’s ability to make decisions was not always assessed in line with legislation designed to protect people’s rights. The provider had taken action to address this but at the time of the inspection this was not fully embedded into the home.
Staff knew the people they supported and were able to explain the risks relating to them and the action they would take to help reduce the risks from occurring. However, risks to people’s health and wellbeing were not always documented. These risk assessments had been updated and documented by the end of the inspection.
People did not always receive care that was personalised and focused on their individual needs.
Records associated with the provision of care and those related to the running of the home were not always accurate and up to date.
People and their families told us they felt the home was safe. Staff and the registered manager had received safeguarding training and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the providers’ safeguarding policy and explain the action they would take if they identified any concerns.
There were suitable systems in place to ensure the safe storage and administration of medicines. Medicines were administered by staff who had received appropriate training and assessments. Healthcare professionals, such as chiropodists, opticians, GPs and dentists were involved in people’s care when necessary.
People were supported by staff who had received an induction into the home and appropriate training, professional development and supervision to enable them to meet people’s needs. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.
Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and were sensitive to their individual communication styles, choices and treated them with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible and maintain relationships that were important to them.
People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Staff supported people, when necessary in a patient and friendly manner.
People and when appropriate their families were involved in discussions about their care planning, which reflected their assessed needs.
There was an opportunity for people and their families to become involved in developing the service. They were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided both informally and through ‘house meetings’ and an annual survey. They were also supported to raise complaints should they wish to.
People told us that they felt the home was well-led and were positive about the registered manager who understood the responsibilities of their role. The provider was fully engaged in running the home and provided regular support to the registered manager. Staff were aware of the provider’s vision and values, how they related to their work and spoke positively about the culture and management of the home.
Accidents and incidents were monitored, analysed and remedial actions identified to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.