We carried out a review of the data available to us about Riverside Rest Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Riverside Rest Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Riverside Rest Home is registered for 26 older people who may live with dementia. At the time of the inspection visit there were 24 people who lived at the home. The home is situated on Lytham sea front close to the town centre.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The laundry facility at the service was small and presented challenges in following good practice guidance. There was no evidence to suggest this had impacted on people’s health and well-being.
We have made a recommendation about laundry services.
Procedures to protect people from harm or abuse were in place. One staff member said, “We have constant safeguarding training so I am confident of the process should I witness any abuse.” Staff managed people’s medicines safely and had in-depth training to assess their skills. Training for infection control had been completed and regularly updated. Recruitment processes were thorough to ensure suitable staff were employed. Risk assessments were completed and reviewed to promote people's safety. The management team had a good system to ensure sufficient staff would be available to meet people’s needs and stay safe. A system was in place to monitor any incidents and accidents and learn lessons from action taken.
The Management team provided multiple opportunities to assist people who lived at Riverside Rest Home to pass on their views to the management team. A staff member said, “Any time we want to speak with the manager we are encouraged to do so and give our views on things.” The management team had extensive auditing systems to maintain ongoing oversight of the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 25 February 2019).
Why we inspected
We undertook this targeted inspection to follow up on a specific incident we received about the service. The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about personal care, staffing and staff training. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Riverside Rest Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Riverside rest home is registered for 26 older people who may live with dementia. At the time of the inspection visit there were 23 people who lived at the home. The home is situated on Lytham sea front close to the town centre.
People’s experience of using this service:
People who lived at Riverside and relatives we spoke with felt confident in the management team and how the service operated. They told us good staffing levels afforded people responsive and dignified support.
It was clear staff morale was good and everyone was committed to ensuring people received care and support based on their preferences and life choices.
People’s care and support had been planned proactively and in partnership with them. They felt consulted and listened to about how their care would be delivered.
People who we could talk with who lived at Riverside consistently told us staff were polite, reliable, caring and respectful in their support for them. For example, one person said, “They know me well and treat me with respect. It is a great place.”
People who lived at Riverside expressed positive views on how they were treated by staff.
The service continued to have good oversight of relevant procedures through monitoring and auditing to ensure people who lived at the home received medication safely.
Staff files we looked at evidenced the registered manager used the same safe recruitment procedures we found at our last inspection. Staff records showed personnel received training to enhance their skills. Staff we spoke with confirmed this.
Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.
Care plan information focused on a person-centred method of supporting people. Also, information contained what support was required and consent to care forms had been signed by people who lived at Riverside or their representative.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff supported people with their meals sensitively and respected their privacy. Staff checked they had enough to eat and comments were positive in relation to quality of meals and choices available to them.
There was a complaints procedure which was made available to people and their family when they commenced using the service. People we spoke with told us they were happy with the support they received. No complaints had been received by the service since the previous inspection.
The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys to seek their views about the service provided. Recent surveys only produced positive comments about the home.
More information is in Detailed Findings below.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 02 December 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated good overall.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme or if any issues or concerns are identified.
Riverside provides care and support for a maximum of 26 older people who may live with dementia or a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people living at the home, as well as one individual who received respite care. Riverside is situated opposite Lytham seafront. There are three floors, as well as the basement where the dining room is situated. Riverside has 23 single rooms, three of which were double bedrooms for couples or friends who wished to share. There is an external yard, where people can smoke if they wish. Riverside offered two lounge areas for the use of people who live at the home.
A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
At the last inspection on 08 June 2013, we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations.
During this inspection, we found people were supported with a safe approach. A relative told us, “I would not leave [my relative] here if it was not safe.” Care records contained risk assessments intended to protect individuals from unsafe support. The registered manager provided safeguarding training for staff to assist them to protect people from abuse and poor practice.
People and their representatives said staffing levels were sufficient to meet their requirements. One relative told us, “They are calm and patient, which tells me there’s enough staff on duty.” We found staff files contained required documents to protect people from the recruitment of unsuitable staff. The management team provided a range of staff training to assist them in their roles. On discussing training with a staff member, they said, “I’ve had lots, which gives me more confidence.”
We observed medicines were administered to people with a discrete and safe approach. Associated recordkeeping was of a good standard. The registered manager had systems to protect people from unsafe management of their medicines, such as regular audits.
All staff who prepared food had completed nutritional support training to enhance their skills and knowledge. We found they assisted individuals discretely, gave appropriate encouragement and offered alternatives if they did not like the main meal.
The registered manager ensured staff had training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We observed people were not deprived of their liberty during our inspection. They or their relatives had signed consent to care.
We found individuals who lived at Riverside were respected and involved in their care planning. A relative told us, “I have come at various times of each day and have always found the staff caring and respectful.” The registered manager ensured staff had equality and diversity training and worked in ways that respected people’s culture, diversity and human rights.
The management team completed an assessment of people’s needs and they updated care planning to guide staff to their ongoing requirements. Their preferences and backgrounds were recorded to tailor care planning to each individual who lived at the home.
Staff, people and visitors told us the home was well organised and had good leadership. The registered manager had suitable arrangements to obtain feedback from people and their relatives about the quality of their care. They had systems to monitor people’s safety and staff told us the management team was ‘hands on’ in their approach.
We saw satisfactory numbers of staff on the inspection to support people as they needed. We observed staff interacting with people. Staff supported people living in the home cheerfully and effectively. They respected people's differences and supported people in their personal lifestyles. They assisted people sensitively and without rushing anyone.
Staff encouraged people to join in social activities indoors and in the local community. People told us about activities available, the entertainers that visited the home and the frequent trips out.
The care records seen were person centred and informative. They showed how the person wanted their care delivered.
The people we spoke with told us they enjoyed the food provided by the home. They told us they always received plenty to eat. People said that the meals were excellent. One person said, 'There is plenty of variety and we get the best of everything.'
People told us they were well supported by the staff at the home. They said they knew how to make a complaint if they wanted to, but said they had no reason to.
"They are never rushed, always have time to spend with you".
"I feel safe and secure here which I didn't on my own".
"I enjoy the trips out and the staff are always putting entertainment on".
"I am glad this is my home, all the staff are polite".