You are here

Riverhead Hall Residential Care Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 September 2018

This inspection took place on the 9 and 10 August 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

The last inspection took place on 29 June and 5 July 2017 and the service was rated requires improvement. The service was in breach of Regulation 17 Good Governance. Concerns related to inconsistencies within care plans, a lack of regular reviews, poor record keeping and quality assurance systems which were not effective in identifying and rectifying issues.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions Safe, Responsive and Well-led to at least good.

At this inspection improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of Regulation 17 Good Governance.

Riverhead Hall Residential Care Home 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.

Riverhead Hall Care Home accommodates up to 45 older people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 33 people living at the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

There was further room for improvement of records being kept about the care being delivered to people. Some records contained gaps. We were confident this was a record keeping issue and not about the delivery of care.

The registered manager had failed to notify the commission about approved Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards being in place. This is being addressed outside of the inspection.

Quality assurance systems were in place and had been effective in identifying required improvements. However, the actions identified were not always rectified which meant the systems needed to be more rigorous to embed service improvement.

Care plans provided care staff with important information about people’s preferences and the support they required. People and their relatives had been involved in the planning and review of their care. Reviews were taking place on a regular basis.

Although we received differing views about staffing levels we found there were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff had been recruited safely.

Staff understood how to safeguard people from avoidable harm. Accidents and incidents were analysed and action taken to reduce occurrence. Risk assessments and measures to mitigate risk were in place.

People were provided with a good standard of care. Care staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs they understood people’s preferences and respected these.

Staff had the skills required to deliver effective care. New care staff had an induction before they started work and ongoing training was available for staff. Some staff supervision and appraisals were overdue but the registered manager had a plan to rectify this.

People had access to a range of activities to promote their emotional wellbeing. Overall people were satisfied with the food provided. People’s nutritional needs were met.

The service sought appropriate advice and support from health and social care professionals to ensure people’s care needs were met.

People described kind and compassionate staff. We observed positive interactions between staff and people. Families were welcome to visit whenever they wished and relatives gave us positive feedback about the service.

People knew how to make complaints and when they did so these were appropriately investigated and responded to. Feedback from people about the service was sought on a regular basis in a

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 September 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe and well looked after by care staff. Risks were assessed and plans were in place to reduce the risk of harm to individuals.

Medicines were safely managed. Staff understood how to safeguard people from avoidable harm.

Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 September 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received the support they required to deliver effective care. Some training and supervision was overdue but the registered manager had a plan to rectify this.

The service was working in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Staff routinely sought consent from people.

Staff referred people to the relevant health and social care professionals as needed and followed the advice they provided

Caring

Good

Updated 14 September 2018

The service was caring.

People had positive relationships with care staff who knew them well. Relatives told us they felt supported.

Care staff respected people’s privacy and provided care with dignity and compassion.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People had access to a range of social activities which included group activities, outings and one to one time.

Care planning records were improving and provided staff with the guidance they required to deliver good care.

People were provided with good end of life care.

People knew how to raise concerns and these were appropriately responded to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 14 September 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

Whilst care planning records and documentation was improving there was some further work to do to.

Quality assurance systems had improved however they needed to be more rigorous in implementing improvements.

Feedback from people living at the service was sought. Staff meetings took place on a regular basis.

The registered manager had failed to notify the commission about three authorised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.