Ridgemoor Road

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People and relatives were involved in regular reviews of their care and support needs. Relatives told us they were kept informed of any changes. One relative told us, “Yes, they involve me in the reviews, it's done over the phone, and they check everything's okay”. Another relative said, “Yes, they do have a review, I get involved and at any time if I think there is anything to raise I feel able to do this and they'll answer my questions”. Day ahead meetings were carried out at the start of each day to share changes with staff in care delivery or any concerns relating to people’s health and wellbeing, plans for the day, what activities and outings were planned and both internal and external appointments. Additionally, there was daily handover documentation for staff to follow.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Risk assessments were in place to help identify risk factors specific to each person, such as manual handling, falls and specific health conditions. This helped provide staff with information on how to manage and minimise these risks and provide people's care safely. However, although there was no impact to people, staff did not always have the most up to date information to follow in relation to peoples modified diet requirements. We observed a staff member preparing food which was not in line with the person’s specific dietary levels. We shared this with the management team. Action was taken to ensure the most recent documentation was made available to staff, a guidance folder was implemented, along with some visual prompts for staff to follow. Refresher training was also sourced. People chose their meals as part of a meal planning process and told us they enjoyed them. We saw people actively involved in making cakes and snacks.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. People were supported by staff who had good working relationships with other healthcare professionals and external visitors. People had access to external healthcare professionals, and care plans evidenced the relevant referrals had been made where required. One healthcare professional told us, “I feel we have built up a good open working relationship, the registered manager is very good at informing us and other relevant professionals”.

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. People were supported to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Care plans demonstrated people had access to external professionals, these included GP’s, learning disability nurses, psychiatrists, advocacy services and speech and language therapists. The service had a weekly visit from a local GP who reviewed people’s clinical needs, the GP had built up a good rapport with staff. The registered manager told us this was a beneficial resource which offered consistency for people using the service.

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent by analysing themes and trends to ensure they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. There were examples of where people’s clinical needs had not been previously met, causing a pattern of frequent anxious behaviours. The service worked with other healthcare professionals to ensure a multi-disciplinary approach, and this resulted in some people’s medicines being either reduced or withdrawn. This had a positive impact on people’s daily lives which meant they needed less medical treatment. Staff monitored people’s specific clinical needs and shared information with relevant healthcare professionals to identify any changes in people’s presentation and to seek medical assistance in a timely manner. For example, 2 people had a specific healthcare diagnosis which sometimes required medical intervention. Staff shared how they would recognise changes in the person which indicated they may be unwell. A representative also confirmed this, they told us, “I never thought they would get to where they are today, it is a miracle really, they attend the day centre they look smart and they are happy, they are a different person. Obviously, the (staff) have looked into their issues and supported them, and they have got them on an even keel”.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DOLS). People were supported to make choices and have control over their lives. Staff worked in the least restrictive way and acted in people’s best interests. Relatives told us staff asked people’s consent before carrying out any care tasks. People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity principles, and there were effective systems in place to support people’s rights and choices. Where people were not able to make decisions themselves, best interest decisions were discussed with relatives/representatives and relevant health care professionals involved in their care. For example, when people required medical procedures and where people lacked capacity to consent to having their medicines covertly. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and how to ensure people’s consent was gained. We observed staff seeking permission and offering choices with people before they commenced care tasks.