You are here

Archived: Ridgemoor Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 January 2016

The inspection took place on 23 October 2015 and was unannounced.

Ridgemoor Road is a care home for people with learning disabilities providing accommodation and personal care for up to eight adults. Care was provided in two bungalows separated by a small parking area and connected by a path.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of the inspection. 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.’

People were protected from danger, harm and abuse because staff had received training and were able to identify and report any concerns. Systems were in place for the safe administration of medication. Risks were appropriately assessed and managed. Staffing levels were based on the needs of people and were being reviewed at the time of our inspection.

People were involved in planning their own care and staff understood how to support them. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and spoke in a way that demonstrated respect.

People were supported to make their own choices about their home, care and support. When people were assessed as not having the capacity to make certain decisions about their care staff ensured that decisions were made in their best interests to protect their human rights. People took part in hobbies and interests in and outside of the bungalows and were able to pursue individual interests. People were supported to access appropriate healthcare and were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain wellbeing.

People and families were encouraged to give their opinions about the care that they or their relatives receive. The registered manager and staff had an open, honest and positive culture. Staff were supported by the registered manager and team leader and received regular one-to-one support. Staff had access to training and time is allocated for staff to update their skills. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the care provided and improvements were made when necessary.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 January 2016

The service was safe.

People felt safe because they were supported by enough staff who knew how to recognise and report any concerns they may had about people’s safety. Staff were recruited in way that offered protection to people using the service. People’s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 January 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills and training to support people’s needs and human rights in respect of their care. Staff respected people’s right to make their own decisions and supported them to do so. People were supported to access healthcare and support from other professionals when needed. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain wellbeing.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 January 2016

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and dignity and they were encouraged to maintain their independence. Staff supported people to be involved in their own care by giving them information in a way they understood.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 January 2016

The service was responsive.

People, and when needed, their families and advocates were involved in the planning of care. People were encouraged to take part in activities and interests that were personal to them. Staff responded appropriately to people’s changing needs. People and relatives felt that they were listened to by the staff and the management team. People were encouraged to maintain contact with families and those that mattered to them.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 January 2016

The service was well led.

The management team promoted an open culture amongst staff and made information available to them to raise a concern or whistle blow. We saw systems were in place which enabled the provider to monitor the quality of care that people received.