We carried out a review of the data available to us about Riverside House 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 House, you can give feedback on this service.
Riverside House is a residential care home providing personal care to nine people with mental health conditions. The care home accommodates people over three floors in one adapted building. There were nine people living at the home at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were supported by kind and caring staff who treated people as individuals and with dignity and respect. The provider had robust recruitment systems to ensure staff were safely recruited. Staff spoke knowledgably about the systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. People were supported by staff who were appropriately inducted, trained and supervised.
People told us they felt safe and systems were in place to safeguard people. Risks to them were identified and managed. Where required people were safely supported with their medicines. Infection control measures were in place to prevent cross infection. The support required by people with health and nutritional needs was identified and provided.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People’s privacy and independence were promoted. Systems were in place to deal with concerns and complaints. This enabled people to raise concerns about their care if they needed to.
People had person centred support plans in place. They were actively involved in their care and contributed to the development of care plans and reviews. People had staff support to access activities in the home and the community. People’s communication needs were identified. However, people’s end of life wishes were not explored and recorded. We have made a recommendation in relation to people’s end of life wishes being explored.
The provider had effective quality assurance systems to monitor the quality and safety of the care provided. People were asked for their views and their feedback used to improve the service and make any necessary changes.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (Published 26 May 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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 House is a forensic mental health service that provides accommodation, supervision and support for nine males with complex mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were nine people living in the home. The home was laid out over three floors, with shared communal bathrooms, lounge and kitchen. The manager’s office is housed in the communal garden and the staff office is located in the premises. The home does not have a lift and there is CCTV on site in communal areas.
The service had a registered manager who was present during the day of the inspection. 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.
Clear guidance was in place to make certain the likelihood of potential risks was reduced and there was a planned multi - agency approach to monitoring and responding to risk. Risk assessments were reviewed when there had been a change in people’s circumstances. Safeguarding practices was followed to protect people from abuse and staff understood how to protect people from harm. Care was delivered by staff who had received specific training and skills that were reflective of the needs of people who lived in the home.
Staff were deployed to support people when this was needed and background checks were carried out to assess the suitability of employees before they began work. Medicines were managed safely and staff had obtained the necessary training to administer these. Referrals were made to health professionals when there were concerns about people’s healthcare needs. People’s nutritional requirements were met and they were encouraged by staff to eat a well - balanced and healthy diet.
Environmental checks were carried out on the premises and people were updated on matters affecting the home. Care plans were personalised and showed how people attained their achievements and participated in the interests that suited them. Positive interventions were sought when people needed support and advice. People were aware of who to raise their concerns with and complaints were investigated and responded to within a reasonable timescale.
Staff used the least restrictive measures when people’s capacity required assessments under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were in place for two people and the conditions of these were adhered to. Easy read information was accessible for people and their confidential records were safely stored. People had access to their own personal records when they chose.
People’s independence was encouraged to enable them to take steps to make their own decisions and choices. Staff sought to engage people and when this was refused, their decisions were respected. They listened to people’s views and sought their opinions and ideas through the use of surveys; however these had not been evaluated. Staff ensured people’s privacy was respected and advocates were used so people’s views could be heard.
Staff were committed to delivering quality care and people felt confident about the ability of staff to support them when this was needed. The registered manager established good links with partner agencies, and people and staff spoke positively about the registered manager’s ability to provide good care. Quality assurance systems were in place to effectively improve the quality of care delivered.
This inspection took place on 30 September 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection to this service took place on 25 June 2013. At our last inspection we found that the provider was meeting all of the regulations we checked.
Riverside House is a specialist service offering care and support to nine people who have mental health needs and have a forensic mental health history. The provider offers accommodation, supervision and support for people preparing to live within the community.
There was a registered manager in place. 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.
People who used the service said they felt safe and knew who to approach if not. There had been no allegations of abuse in the past year. Staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported and knew what procedures were in place if they had concerns.
Medicines were safely managed and people received their medicines as they needed.
Risks to people were carefully assessed, recorded and included in individual care plans. Staff were knowledgeable about the risks to individuals and skilful at working with people to minimise those risks.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. All staff were vetted prior to commencing work and essential recruitment documents and records were in place.
Staff were knowledgeable about the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and procedures were in place in relation to the Act.
Staff used their knowledge about the needs of individuals to support people effectively and received support, training and supervision as they needed to help with this.
People were supported with their dietary needs effectively.
The provider worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to promote and optimise the health and wellbeing of people .
People were supported by kind and caring staff. They said that staff were always there and were approachable whenever they needed to talk.
People were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. They were treated with dignity and respect and their views were taken into account when developing what support they received.
People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission to ensure they received the right care and support.
Whilst care plans identified actions to meet needs, care plans developed did not always clearly state how rehabilitation and recovery goals would be achieved. However, people were supported to develop their skills and abilities, and to pursue their personal interests.
A complaints procedure was in place. People who used the service knew how to complain and said they had no complaints. Where issues or shortfalls were raised these were promptly addressed.
People using the service and staff told us there were good management arrangements in place. Staff said they felt well supported and there was good leadership.
There was a system of regular audits to check that policies and procedures were being implemented correctly.
The structure within the service for decision making and accountability made sure that people's care and support needs were met consistently.
People felt their interests and beliefs were respected. One person sometimes felt the need to follow certain religious practices around food and food preparation. The home supported this although this person felt that perhaps more could be done.
One issue that several people raised was about unacceptable behaviour, such as abusive shouting, by some people using the service. This seemed to have improved recently and people had some confidence ithat the staff were managing this situation.
People were positive about the staff and particularly the manager. People said they felt safe and able to raise any concerns. We saw evidence that people's concerns were taken seriously and acted on. We saw the staff acting quickly to support one person who was becoming unwell.