You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

Ridgemede Care is a residential care home and provides accommodation for up to 36 people older people and those living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, 30 people were living at the home. Accommodation is provided within a large detached house with communal areas, lounge, dining room and a secure garden to the rear of the property. The home is located close to the town centre of Bishops Waltham. All bedrooms have en-suite toilet and hand wash facilities. Bathrooms with shower facilities are provided on both floors. The service is not registered to provide nursing care.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We last inspected this service on 4 January 2017 and found the provider was in breach of one regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We issued requirement notices in respect of the breach. We also identified three areas where improvement was required in respect of medicines management, environmental safety and consent to care and treatment.

Following our inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us about the actions they were going to take to meet these regulations and make the necessary improvements. Action had been taken to meet the requirements of regulation the service had breached. We also found that improvements in the other areas of concern had also been made.

The provider had taken appropriate steps to protect people from the risk of abuse, neglect or harassment. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

People received their medicines safely, accurately, and in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions. Medicines were stored safely.

The provider operated safe and effective recruitment procedures.

Assessments were in place to identify risks that may be involved when meeting people’s needs. Staff were aware of people’s individual risks and were knowledgeable about strategies’ in place to keep people safe.

People were supported to maintain good health and have access to healthcare services. The home worked in partnership with a nearby GP practice and received regular visits and support from an Advanced Nurse Practitioner.

There were sufficient numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff were not hurried or rushed and when people requested care or support this was delivered quickly.

Staff received supervision and appraisals were on-going, providing them with appropriate support to carry out their roles. Training records showed that staff had received training in a range of areas that reflected their job roles.

People and where appropriate their relatives were involved in their care planning, Care plans were amended to show any changes, and care plans were routinely reviewed to check they were up to date.

Care plans were developed and maintained about every aspect of people’s care and were centred on individual needs and requirements. This ensured that the staff were knowledgeable about the person and their individual needs.

People were treated with kindness. Staff were patient and encouraged people to do what they could for themselves, whilst allowing people time for the support they needed.

Staff responded appropriately to accidents or incidents. Staff recorded all accidents and incidents and the registered manager responded appropriately and further actions were taken to prevent incidents reoccurring.

People knew who to talk

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

The service was safe. The provider had systems in place to

manage risk. Staff understood how to recognise, respond and report abuse or any concerns they had about safe care practices.

Robust recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff were employed. There were enough staff deployed to provide care and support to people in a safe way and when they needed it.

People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were stored and managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

The service was effective. Staff were provided with training and support that gave them the skills to care for people effectively.

People's rights were protected because staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People's nutritional needs were assessed and professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

The service was caring. People were comfortable and relaxed in the company of the staff supporting them.

Staff treated people with dignity, respect and kindness. Staff fully understood and were aware of people's needs, likes, interests and preferences.

People were involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support as far as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

The service was responsive. People's individual assessments and care plans were reviewed with their participation or their

representatives' involvement regularly.

Care plans had been updated to reflect any changes to ensure continuity of their care and support.

Pre-admission assessment of needs included information about people’s likes, dislikes and preferences about how their care was to be provided

Systems were in place to deal with any complaints received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

The service was well led. Staff, people and relatives told us

the registered manager had created a warm, supportive and non-judgemental

environment in which people had clearly thrived.

Staff interacted with people positively, displaying understanding, kindness and sensitivity.

There were effective systems in place to monitor all aspects of the care and treatment people received. Audits had been conducted regularly by the registered manager to drive improvement.