Rykneld View

Updated 10 April 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 18 February 2021 and was announced.

Updated 10 April 2021

Rykneld View provides personal and nursing care and accommodation for up to 31 people. On the day of the inspection the registered manager informed us that 30 people were living at the home.

The inspection took place on 5 and 6 April 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

At our last inspection in February 2016, we rated the service 'Good'. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of 'Good.' This inspection report is written in shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

A registered manager was in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People's risk assessments provided staff with information on how to support people safely, though some assessments were not fully in place. Lessons to prevent incidents occurring had been learnt from past events. Staffing levels meant people were safe but they were not always sufficient to ensure meet people’s personal care needs.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area. Staff were subject to checks to ensure they were appropriate to work with the people who used the service though systems needed to be more robust to provide full protection. People were protected from the risks of infection.

People using the service and relatives we spoke with said they thought the home was safe. They thought their medicines were given safely and this had been the case when we checked.

Staff had been trained to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. Staff understood their main responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have an effective choice about how they lived their lives.

People had plenty to eat and drink and they told us they liked the food served. People's health care needs had been protected.

People told us they liked the staff and got on well with them. We saw many examples of staff working with people in a friendly and caring way. People and their representatives were involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.

Care plans were individual to the people using the service and covered their health and social care needs. Activities were organised to provide stimulation for people and they had opportunities to take part in a number of activities, though not in the community.

People and their relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any concerns and were confident these would be followed up.

People and staff we spoke with were satisfied with how the home was run by the registered manager. Management carried out audits and checks to ensure the home was running properly to meet people's needs.