Archived: Ridgeway House

Below is a summary of what we found. This is based on our visit to the home when we met with the people who used the service and with members of the staff and management team. Not everybody who used the service was able to express their views verbally and our observations in the home helped us to make judgements about the support that people received.

Is the service caring?

Not everybody who used the service was able to speak with us about their experiences of living in the home. However we made observations that people appeared settled and comfortable. Staff understood people's needs well. For example, we saw one member of staff supported a person with their medication. The medication was initially refused and so the member of staff was patient and took the person to their own room where they were happier to take their medication.

Is the service responsive?

Staff at the home recognised when people's needs changed and sought support from other healthcare professionals when necessary. For example we saw that a referral to the Community Learning Disabilities Team had been made for an individual whose health needs became more complex. For another person, the advice of another professional had been acted upon in relation to a piece of equipment that they required.

Where concerns had been raised that potentially concerned a person's welfare, the issues were reported and investigated appropriately.

Is the service safe?

Staff were trained in how to recognise and report the signs of abuse and told us they felt confident in doing so. Staff understood the term 'whistle blowing' and there was information available for staff to refer to if needed. Any potential safeguarding incidents were reported to the correct authorities and investigated thoroughly.

In cases where people were unable to make decisions independently about their own care and support, arrangements were in place to ensure that decisions were made in their best interests.

People were protected from the risks associated with medicines because staff were trained in how to administer them. Records were kept when medications were given so that people could be sure that they would receive support with their medications at the correct time. The provider had arrangements in place to return unused medication to the pharmacy so that they could be disposed of safely.

Is the service effective?

People's support plans were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they were reflective of people's current needs. A monthly report was written by keyworkers to highlight any significant issues in relation to people's care and support.

Staff told us that communication was good amongst staff so that key information was shared at handover times and in the communication book.

Is the service well led?

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. This included a programme of audit. People who used the service and their representatives were asked their views about the service in an annual survey.

People's care was planned and delivered in a person centred way which took account of their individual needs and cultural beliefs. People were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment and there systems in place to monitor this.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people in the home and this included providing 1-1 support where required. Staff absence was usually covered by the staff team, which meant there was little requirement to use agency staff.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and this included gathering the views of people and their representatives.