Ravenstone Care and Rehabilitation Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Due to the concerns identified during the assessment, we could not be assured that people consistently received high‑quality, compassionate care that upheld their dignity and rights. The language used in some care records did not always promote people’s dignity and respect; for example, records sometimes included descriptions that were subjective and potentially dismissive of people’s behaviours, rather than reflective, respectful, and strengths based. In addition, the environment did not consistently support people’s privacy and dignity, since locks had been removed from some bedroom doors. While the registered manager told us this was to support safety, there was limited evidence that alternative measures had been implemented or recorded to ensure an appropriate balance between safety and people’s right to privacy.

Despite these concerns, relatives spoke positively about the care provided. One relative told us, “They do well at caring and are passionate, treating people as part of the family. They are compassionate, kind, and respectful of confidentiality. They never discuss things in public, and the residents are clean and comfortable. They are very caring staff.” Relatives also said staff promoted people’s dignity. One relative told us, “They get good care and are treated with dignity and respect.”

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure people were treated as individuals and that their care and support consistently met their needs and preferences.

The environment was not always enabling or adapted to meet people’s individual needs. One relative said, “I think she could do with a handle for her bathroom and she needs something to hold onto and not hold on to the sink.” We also received mixed feedback regarding activities and social support. The activities coordinator worked 2 days per week and whilst staff supported people, they also had other duties including care and kitchen duties. We received mixed feedback about how people’s social needs were met. One relative said, “She might be bored though.” Another relative said, “She likes the activities…she likes the exercise and the singing.”

As a result, people’s opportunities for meaningful engagement and social interaction were not always consistent or sufficiently tailored to their interests, abilities, or preferences.

Following the assessment, the registered manager told us they had received confirmation from the infection prevention and control team that people could be supported to prepare and cook food for themselves in the kitchen as a way of promoting independence. They also told us that additional aids and adaptations had been purchased to better meet people’s mobility and support needs and activities provision had been increased to 3 days a week.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure people were supported to maintain their independence, exercise choice, and have control over their care and daily lives. Equipment and environmental adaptations intended to promote independence were not always identified, in place, or reviewed. This included gaps in the provision of appropriate support equipment, such as aids to support safe mobility and reduce the risk of falls.

We received mixed feedback from relatives about the promotion of people’s independence. One relative described concerns that further environmental adaptations were needed to better support independence. Another relative told us, “They encourage her to help herself and do things for herself like putting her socks on. They have encouraged her to join in with the activities and things.”

Although the home included the term rehabilitation in its title, there was limited evidence to demonstrate that goals were consistently assessed, planned, delivered, or reviewed.

Following the assessment, the registered manager told us they had received confirmation from the infection prevention and control team that people could be supported to prepare and cook food for themselves in the kitchen as a way of promoting independence. They also explained that support had been provided to help staff use the electronic care management system more effectively, to ensure people’s goals and outcomes were appropriately recorded, planned, delivered, and reviewed.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure people’s immediate needs were consistently identified and responded to in a timely way. Staff deployment did not always allow staff to respond flexibly when people required additional support, particularly when staff were also required to undertake non‑care duties such as cooking and kitchen tasks.

Equipment and environmental adaptations to support people safely and promptly were not always available. For example, appropriate equipment to support people following a fall, such as a hoist or mechanical aid, was not in place. This limited staff’s ability to respond safely to urgent situations and increased the risk of delayed or unsafe interventions. In addition, systems to ensure monitoring equipment, such as sensor alarms and call bells, were operational were not effective, despite a previous incident where a sensor alarm had failed to work.

Records did not always clearly demonstrate how staff were guided to respond to changes in people’s physical health, nutritional status, or behaviour. For example, care plans and risk assessments lacked clear actions for staff to follow when risks increased, which reduced assurance that immediate responses were consistently planned or coordinated.

Despite these shortfalls, relatives spoke positively about how staff responded to people’s needs. One relative told us, “They listen and take action if she isn’t well.”

Following our assessment, the registered manager told us that a cook was in the process of being recruited, a hoist had been purchased and support had been provided to help staff use the electronic care management system effectively.

An effective system was not fully in place to support staff wellbeing and enablement. Training and staff meetings had not always been completed in line with planned arrangements. This meant systems to support staff development, learning, and shared communication were not consistently embedded.

Despite this, staff told us they felt supported in their roles and spoke positively about working at the home. A member of staff described a difficult personal experience and said they were well supported by the registered manager and colleagues, which helped to support their wellbeing. Another member of staff told us, “I enjoy working here, the staff and management are friendly and supportive. We have team bonding sessions where we will go out and have fun.”