Riverview Nursing Home

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment was effective. Management had recently reviewed all care plans and risk assessments to ensure people’s needs were assessed correctly. The provider now has a robust governance system in place to ensure these are reviewed monthly or sooner if required. We observed effective systems were mainly in place to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to service users and keep them safe. However, we found examples where risk assessments and care plans required further detail. Lack of guidance for staff in care records placed people at risk of harm or injury. People told us they were involved in their care. One relative told us, “[Name]’s care plan is updated regularly. We meet staff and are involved.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. People told us they were involved in their care. Care plans were person-centred, detailing personal preferences and included what is important to them.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually to identify and embed good practice. Accidents and incidents were being recorded by staff with clear details of what had occurred and what had happened in response. Accidents and incidents were analysed by management monthly with lessons learnt reviews in place. The manager told us they have an open and honest culture, and they act and investigate any safety concerns reported to them. Staff told us they could raise concerns around safety if required. One staff member told us, “The manager is approachable and listens to us.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. During our assessment we observed mealtimes. The food was nutritious and appetizing, the portion sizes were good, and people could have more if they wished. Meals were adapted to meet people’s preferences and choices. There were ample staff for people to be supported with eating and drinking when required. Any concerns the provider had around nutrition and weight loss, or any other health concerns, were referred to the appropriate healthcare professionals. One person had a bowel chart in place so staff could monitor and support them when required.

Management told us that they routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent. We found the service had recently updated all care plans to ensure that outcomes were positive for people. We observed effective systems were mainly in place to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to service users and keep them safe. However, we found a few examples where risk assessments and records of care required further detail. Some records relating to care provided were not consistent with people’s care plans. For example, repositioning charts had gaps longer than stated in the persons care plan, placing them at risk of harm or injury. Some people who were nutritionally at risk had some gaps in their meal charts. Audits had taken place but not picked up on this.

The provider did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Restrictions in place for people who lacked capacity to consent to their use, mainly had the required mental capacity assessments in place, to ensure the implementation of the restrictions was in line with legislation. However, we found 2 people did not have these in place for some restrictions. In addition, some people’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had expired. The provider had re-applied for these, however they had not maintained regular contact with the Local Authorities for updates.