You are here

Archived: Ryecroft Private Residential Care Home Inadequate

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26 June 2014
Date of Publication: 1 August 2014
Inspection Report published 01 August 2014 PDF | 84.07 KB

People should be cared for in safe and accessible surroundings that support their health and welfare (outcome 10)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are in safe, accessible surroundings that promote their wellbeing.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 26 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider and talked with commissioners of services.

Our judgement

People who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

Reasons for our judgement

On arrival at the home we did a tour of the building. Accommodation was spread out across three floors.

The entrance area to the home was light, brightly decorated and welcoming. Corridors and communal areas of the home were tidy and free from clutter and the lounge and a dining room on the ground floor were pleasantly decorated. Bedrooms were situated on all three floors and were accessible by both a staircase and passenger lift.

The majority of the bedrooms had their own sink and toilet facilities and there were communal bathroom facilities on the ground and second floor. The ground floor bathroom contained a communal bath and the second floor bathroom contained both a bath and a shower facility. Both baths were equipped with a bath hoist to assist people with mobility problems into the bath. We found however that both baths were in need of cleaning and that the bath hoist seat covers were dirty and in need of a wash. We spoke to the deputy manager about this during our tour of the building who immediately drew it to the housekeeper’s attention.

We noted there were a couple of repair issues around the home which required attention. For example some of the ceiling tiles looked damp or damaged and there was a cracked window pane in one of the bathrooms. Overall however the home’s general state of repair was good.

We asked the deputy manager what the maintenance arrangements were at the home. We were told repairs were undertaken by a local handyman who was called out to the home as and when required. We asked staff about how repairs were recorded and organised. They told us they reported any repairs directly to the management or the provider who visited the home once a week. We saw evidence that a maintenance schedule in relation to the home was in place.

We saw there was a call bell system in place for people to ring for assistance. A call bell information panel was available on the ground floor which alerted staff to the area of the home in which assistance was required once the call bell was pressed. There was no call bell information panel however located on the 1st and 2nd floor. This meant that if staff were on the first or second floor when a call bell rang there was no way for staff to check which area of the home the call was coming from unless they went back downstairs to check the ground floor call bell panel first. The deputy manager and the two staff we spoke with during our visit confirmed this. We were also told that although they could hear the call bell in the 1st and 2nd floor corridors, they were unable to hear the call bell if they were in people’s bedrooms at the time the call bell was pressed. This meant that there was a risk that people’s calls for assistance would not be met in a timely and responsive manner.

Staff told us they undertook regular checks on people in their bedrooms throughout the day and night to ensure people’s assistance needs were met and people were safe. The provider may find it useful to note however that there was no formal risk assessment in place to identify and manage the risks associated with the issues relating to the call bell system.

We spoke to both the manager and provider about our concerns about the call bell system. The provider told us that they were currently in the process of liaising with the supplier of the call bell system to either install an additional call bell information panel on upper floors or to provide staff with a mobile pager system that alerted them immediately to people’s assistance calls. We saw formal evidence of the discussion between the provider and the supplier in support of this.

We noted that floor plans in relation to the layout of the building and the location of smoke detectors, fire extinguishers and emergency exits were displayed on the ground floor to help in the event of an emergency. A fire risk assessment had recently been undertaken, weekly fire alarm tests were up to date and all staff had attende