You are here

Archived: Ryedale Court Nursing Home

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 14 January 2011
Date of Publication: 2 June 2011
Inspection Report published 2 June 2011 PDF | 130.68 KB

Contents menu

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 14/01/2011, checked the provider's records, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

People are cared for in a respectful manner that promotes their dignity and individuality. Although there was certain evidence to indicate that people and their relatives are consulted about their individual care plans, this needs to be officially confirmed through people signing their agreement in the care plans.

User experience

“I am pleased with excellent care”.

“Ryedale Court is always warm and friendly, and we feel that the care given to X is first class”.

We spoke to people and their visitors about how the service supported people to be involved in their care. A relative stated that they had been visiting a resident every day for over ten years and had never had any concerns with the manner that staff spoke to people living at the care home.

We observed how staff interacted with people at different times during the day (for example, during meal times and medication rounds). We found that people were spoken to in a respectful and pleasant way. For example, it was noted that a person enjoyed frequently telling people the same joke and anecdotes; staff responded appropriately with genuine interest and good humour.

Other evidence

The vast majority of people were not able to comment upon how they had been formally consulted about their individual needs and preferences, due to their cognitive and/or physical health needs. We noted that the care plans were not signed by people (or their relatives, if required) although the visitors that we met confirmed that staff had spoken to them about care planning and significant updates to the care plans. The manager informed us that he intended to introduce a new and more streamlined care planning model, which would have built-in prompts for staff to ensure that the views of people (and/or their relatives) are consistently sought and recorded.

We also identified that one of the assessment documents contained the term ‘geriatric nursing home’, which is no longer used professionally. This will be addressed through the manager introducing a newer care planning system that promotes current good theory and practice.

The views of people and relatives were also obtained through the service hosting meetings and conducting surveys, although it was acknowledged by the manager that very few residents were able to participate because of their cognitive and/or physical health needs.