Ribston House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There was a lack of cohesive follow-up when an incident or accident occurred, with investigations not always clearly recorded. One incident had been incorrectly recorded as a ‘complaint’ when it should have been recorded as a ‘near miss’. Governance systems could not clearly identify themes and trends as accidents were recorded separately for each person and not collectively.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

We found some inconsistencies in records pertaining to evacuating from fire, with one person being cared for in bed being described as needing support to walk out of their room. We found the provider had not considered how the call bell system disadvantaged people who preferred to stay in their room. Call bells were wall-mounted, with no cords available for people to use while seated. This meant some people with limited mobility who chose to remain in their rooms could not independently summon staff. Although the small size of the home meant people could call out, there was no assessment of how they would seek assistance if unwell. The provider assured us additional checks would be carried out if a person was poorly.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We found window restrictors on the first floor did not comply with best practice guidance and there was no risk assessment in place for a gate on the stairs leading from the first floor to the second floor. The registered manager was receptive to our feedback and immediately addressed our concerns.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.