Archived: Rivendell

Updated 26 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection site visit took place on 19 May 2019 and was announced. The inspection was carried out by a single inspector. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice. This was due to the size of the home and so that we could be sure the manager or senior person in charge was available when we visited and that people could be informed.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the home had sent us. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive. We contacted the local authority quality assurance team and safeguarding team to obtain their views about the service.

We had not requested a Provider Information Return (PIR) from the service. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We gathered this feedback from the registered manager during the inspection.

We spoke with one person who used the service and one staff member. We had telephone conversations with two health and social care professionals.

We spoke with the registered manager and owner. We reviewed two people’s care files, two medicine administration records, policies, risk assessments and consent to care and treatment. We looked at four staff files, the recruitment process, complaints, training and supervision records.

We walked around the building and observed care practice and interactions between care staff and people who live there. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) at meal times. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We asked the registered manager to send us information after the visit. This included an ‘all about me’ booklet and quality audits. They agreed to submit this by Thursday 24 May 2018 and did so via email.

Updated 26 June 2018

Rivendell is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Rivendell is detached property in Christchurch. The home provides accommodation for up to three people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder and mental health needs. At the time of our inspection two people were living at the home.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the actions needed if abuse was suspected. There were enough staff to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. When people were at risk of falling or seizures staff understood the actions needed to minimise avoidable harm. The service was responsive when things went wrong and reviewed practices in a timely manner. Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained staff.

Fire safety was reviewed. Although people had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place we had concerns that the home did not have necessary fire safety measures in place to ensure that people could be supported safely in the event of a fire. This included a lack of fire doors, firefighting equipment, emergency lighting and accessible fire exits. We shared these findings with Dorset Fire and Rescue.

People had been involved assessments of their care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required. Their care was provided by staff who had received an induction and on-going training that enabled them to carry out their role effectively. People had their eating and drinking needs understood and met. Opportunities to work in partnership with other organisations took place to ensure positive outcomes for people using the service. 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.

People and professionals described the staff as caring, kind and friendly and the atmosphere of the home as homely. People were able to express their views about their care and felt in control of their day to day lives. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected.

People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about how they were able to communicate their needs, their life histories and the people important to them. A complaints process was in place and people felt they would be listened to and actions taken if they raised concerns. The home was in the process of updating and creating new booklets which gave staff the information required to get to know them. These included; communication, preferences, likes, dislikes, interests and people important to them.

The service had an open and positive culture that encouraged involvement of people, their families, staff and other professional organisations. Leadership was visible and promoted teamwork. Staff spoke positively about the management and had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. The home was in the process of creating audits and quality assurance processes which would be effective in driving service improvements. The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services.

Further information is in the detailed findings below