You are here

Archived: Ridgemoor Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 July 2013
Date of Publication: 13 August 2013
Inspection Report published 13 August 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 10 July 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

Most people in the home were not able to speak with us about the care they received and their experience of living in the home. Therefore we observed how staff interacted and supported people. This helped us to make a judgement on how their needs were being met. We spoke to four people, spent time in the communal areas of both bungalows and saw the lunchtime meal in one. The people that were able to speak said, "yes" when we asked if they were happy living at the home and "yes" when asked if they liked the care staff.

We found that people’s needs were being met. We saw staff engaging with people in a friendly and caring way. People had been supported to look their best and they were relaxed and comfortable. One person had been supported to visit a relative. The staff were able to tell us about the support people needed with risk areas such as posture, nutrition and pressure area care. We established that people’s needs were kept under close review through discussions at regular staff meetings and key workers evaluating the care plans each month.

One monthly summary review did not reflect that the person had gained weight when their health care plan aim was for controlled weight loss. Staff meeting minutes showed this had been picked up and action taken to increase monitoring of food intake.

We saw the care plan of a person who has lived at the home for many years. This contained detailed information about the person’s needs and included their preferred routines, health, personal care and communication needs and essential information for a hospital admission. The information was personalised and covered risks that staff needed to be aware of to help keep people safe. The plan had been kept under review and information added as changes occurred.

Two people had moved in to the home since we last inspected. We looked at their records to see how their needs were being met. Some assessment information had been received from their funding authority. An assessment had not been completed by the service due to the emergency nature of both admissions. A care plan had been developed for one person. This was very personalised and showed that the staff had carefully considered the person’s preferred routines and special needs. The person had settled well and looked at ease with the staff.

The second new person had moved from another care home who had provided a copy of their care plan for this person. This plan was available to the staff but one worker said they had not read it. The provider may wish to note that although the person’s placement had not been confirmed as permanent there was no evidence that this plan had been reviewed during the three weeks the person had lived at Ridgemoor Road. No changes had been made to reflect that the person was in a different environment where risks may need to be managed differently. A risk arising from this person’s behaviour had been identified in two incident records. These had been highlighted to catch staff’s attention. A risk assessment had not been completed about this to formally guide staff about how to manage this behaviour.

This person had a chronic medical condition. The provider may wish to note that no literature on the condition had been provided. Staff told us that the local GP had been informed of the person’s admission and the GP was going to make the link with the specialist nurse for this condition. The person needed to attend six weekly podiatry appointments. The staff on duty were not aware at which clinic these had been attended in the past or when the next appointment was. The manager told us after the inspection that training on the condition had been arranged prior to the inspection and that a key worker had been appointed who was working proactively to ensure the person's health needs were fully met.

The daily records for all three people showed that they had been supported to meet their care needs and to attend routine heal