Riann Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider assessed and reviewed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s support plans were person-centred and included information about their life histories and things that were important to them. Feedback from people and relatives included, “My [relative] and I went through my care needs with the manager, and we have had reviews from time to time” and “I was involved in the setting up of my care plan and they do review the plan with me from time to time”.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. The provider sometimes used nationally recognised, evidence-based tools to support assessments of people’s needs. For example, when assessing risk of skin breakdown. However, these were not always used effectively as they were not always fully completed, and outcomes were not used to inform care plans or risk assessments.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

People told us staff supported them to seek advice about health concerns. A person told us a staff member had noticed a potential skin condition and alerted them to it, and the person was now receiving treatment for the condition. A relative told us staff regularly supported their loved one out with activities relevant to their interests which promoted mental stimulation and helped their wellbeing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment, but this was not consistently effective. When staff recorded things such as people’s food and fluid intake or skin integrity, these were not always effectively monitored or reviewed to improve. For example, food and fluid records did not always demonstrate people had been supported to have their food texture modified in line with their assessed needs. However, a senior staff member told us they were working with staff to provide more detail in their daily record entries so they can better identify if people’s needs were changing.

The provider mostly sought consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance, but this was not always consistent.

People told us staff asked for consent before supporting them and respected their right to refuse. However, we could not be assured staff and leaders always understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For example, they had not identified the need for a capacity assessment or referral to the local authority for assessment when a person was under 24-hour supervision and not free to leave without staff support. Although the person was regularly supported to go out with staff, this meant people were exposed to the risk of being unlawfully deprived of their liberty.

Following our inspection, we received confirmation by the provider of a best interest meeting