Ravenstone Care and Rehabilitation Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure person‑centred care was provided consistently. Staff deployment did not always fully meet the needs of people living at the home, which meant staff were not always able to provide proactive, person‑centred support, particularly when people required additional assistance.

Some relatives told us that more social activities were needed. One relative said, “She has got a bit institutionalised and sits around.” In addition, care plans were not always accurate or sufficiently detailed to fully reflect people’s needs and preferences.

Despite these shortfalls, relatives told us they felt staff knew their family members well. One relative said, “They give her a little head massage and she loves it.”

Following our assessment, the registered manager told us that activities provision had been increased to 3 days a week and further support had been provided to help staff use the electronic care management system effectively, to ensure care plans better reflected people’s needs, preferences, and person‑centred outcomes.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure the diverse health and care needs of people were consistently met. The service supported a mixed population, including younger and older adults, people living with dementia, people with mental health needs and people with a learning disability. Systems were not sufficiently developed to ensure the full range of these needs could be met effectively.

Staff deployment did not always enable staff to respond flexibly to people’s needs. Staff were required to undertake multiple roles, including providing personal care, cooking, kitchen duties, completing health and safety checks, and supporting social activities. An activities coordinator covered 2 days per week. Some relatives told us that more activities would be beneficial. One relative said they felt their family member would benefit from increased stimulation and more meaningful activity. They questioned whether staff responsibilities, including supporting kitchen duties, affected the level of engagement available. Another relative told us, “There is enough going on for her. I am not sure if there would be enough for the younger residents.” In addition, care plans did not include clear goals or outcomes, which meant staff did not always have sufficient guidance to consistently plan, deliver, and review care.

The provider ensured people received information that met their needs. Care plans included details about how people communicated.

Relatives told us they generally felt informed and able to approach the management team to discuss concerns or ask questions. One relative told us, “She [manager] has been and tells us anything we need to know.”

A system was in place for people and relatives to provide feedback, share ideas, or raise complaints about care, treatment, and support, including the use of surveys. People and relatives generally spoke positively about how the service was managed and how concerns were handled. One relative told us they had raised a concern and it was dealt with “properly.” Another relative said, “No complaints, and I know I can discuss anything I want to and they would sort things out.” One relative told us they were awaiting clearer communication about an important decision and felt updates had not been provided in a timely way. The registered manager was aware of this issue and told us that action was being taken to address it.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure people could access the care and support they needed at the right time. Equipment and environmental adaptations required to meet people’s needs were not always available. This included handrails, raised toilet seats, and appropriate mechanical aids, such as a hoist to support people following a fall. These shortfalls limited the service’s ability to respond promptly and appropriately to people’s changing needs.

In addition, although the service was called Ravenstone Care and Rehabilitation Home, there was limited evidence to demonstrate that structured rehabilitation support was consistently assessed, planned, delivered, or reviewed.

Despite these concerns, relatives spoke positively about access to external health and social care professionals. One relative told us, “They contact the GP and other professionals as needed. There is a paramedic attached to the home and they have a specific GP practice.”

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 a hoist had been purchased, along with additional aids and adaptations, to better meet people’s mobility and support needs. In addition, 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 experienced equitable care and outcomes. During the assessment, we identified gaps in how the service met people’s needs, including access to appropriate equipment, opportunities to meet social needs, and the consistent support of people whose behaviours placed themselves or others at risk.

The service supported a diverse population, including younger adults, older adults, people living with dementia, people with mental health needs, and people with a learning disability. However, systems were not sufficiently robust to ensure care was consistently tailored and delivered across this wide range of needs.

Staff deployment at times reduced the service’s ability to respond flexibly and equitably when people required different types or levels of support at the same time.

Despite these issues, some relatives told us about the positive difference living at the home had made to their family member’s wellbeing. One relative said, “The previous place she didn’t feel at home at. She is more settled and happier here.”

Following our assessment, the registered manager told us that additional staff, including a maintenance staff member and a cook were in the process of being recruited. They also told us that activities provision had increased and was now available 3 days a week. This would help staff respond more flexibly to people’s needs and reduce competing demands on care staff.

An effective system was not fully in place to support future planning. Records were not always accurate, consistent, or person centred. For example, 1 person’s records contained conflicting information regarding their DNACPR status, with 1 entry stating they did not have a DNACPR in place and another stating that they did.

Records did not demonstrate that all staff had completed end of life care training to support effective future and advance care planning. The registered manager told us that this training was being arranged.