The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ryland View Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Arnhem Way, Tipton, West Midlands, DY4 7HR

Provided and run by:
Bupa Care Homes (CFHCare) Limited

All Inspections

18 January 2016

During a routine inspection

Our inspection was unannounced and took place on 18 and 19 January 2016.

The home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care to a maximum of 142 people. On the last inspection day 142 people lived at the home. Some people lived with conditions that related to old age whilst other people had dementia or a physical disability. Care provided was within five different units. On Bloomfield and Heronville units care was provided to people who lived with dementia. On Palethorpe unit care was provided to younger adults who lived with a physical disability and on Haines unit care was provided to people who lived with elderly frail conditions. On the fifth unit Mamby the care provided was intermediate and step down support which was for a short duration of time only. Some people on this unit had been discharged from hospital but for various reasons were not yet ready to return to their own homes. Other people required short term support to regain their health and/or mobility.

At our last inspection of August 2014 the provider was not meeting one regulation that we assessed relating to medicine management and safety and improvements were required regarding the quality monitoring of the service. Following our inspection the provider sent us an action plan which highlighted the action they would take to improve. Our inspection findings confirmed that the improvements had been made.

The manager was registered with us. 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.

Staff knew the procedures that they should follow to ensure the risk of harm and/or abuse was reduced.

Kind and caring staff in sufficient numbers were available to meet people’s individual needs.

Medicine systems were well managed and safe and ensured that people were given their medicines as they had been prescribed.

Staff received induction training and the day to day support they needed to ensure they met people’s needs and kept them safe.

Staff felt that they were trained and supported to enable them to care for people in the way that they preferred.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This ensured that people received care in line with their best interests and would not be unlawfully restricted.

People were enabled and encouraged to make decisions about their care. If they were unable to their relatives were involved in how their care was planned and delivered.

Staff supported people with their nutrition and dietary needs to promote their good health.

People received assessments and/or treatment when it was needed from a range of health care professionals which helped to promote their health and well-being.

Systems were in place for people and their relatives to raise their concerns or complaints.

People and their relatives felt that the quality of service was good. The registered manager and provider undertook regular audits and took action where changes or improvements were needed.

12 August 2014

During a routine inspection

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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

This inspection was unannounced and no one at the service knew we were going to inspect them. The last inspection on 14 January 2014 identified that the service was not meeting legal requirements in respect of providing care to people, management of medicines and monitoring of the quality of the service. At this inspection we saw that improvements had been made in all the required areas.

Ryland View Nursing Home provides nursing and personal care to up to 140 people who may have needs due to old age, physical disability and dementia. The service is organised into five bungalows each of which have their own facilities and staff team. There are five unit managers each of whom is responsible for the management of a bungalow. There is one registered manager who is responsible for the overall running of the complex. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

At the time of our inspection there were 139 people living in the home. We saw that people were not always safe and protected from harm because we found that the service continued to be in breach of Regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 in relation to the shortfalls in the safe administration of medicines. We saw that there continued to be shortfalls in the information available to staff regarding medicines to be given on an ‘as and when’ required basis. This information was needed so that it could be ensured people were given their medicines when they needed them and in a way that was both safe and consistent. Records were not available to show that best interest procedures had been followed to ensure that people who needed medicines to be concealed in food and drink were protected and actions were in their best interests.

We saw that people were not always safe because equipment they needed to ensure their needs were met was not always available. This meant that the provider was in breach of Regulation 16 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the end of the report.

Not everyone in the home was able to tell us about their care so we spent time observing them being supported by staff. We spoke with some people, relatives and friends who were able to tell us about the care provided. Our observations and discussions with people and visitors showed that there were positive caring relationships between staff and the people that lived there. We saw that people were treated with respect and care was based on people’s needs. We observed that people appeared to be relaxed and their expressions indicated they were settled and happy. This was the view of family members we spoke with, who told us their relatives were settled and happy. They said they were very pleased with the care their relatives received.

The staff we spoke with were aware of the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and people were supported to make decisions about their life. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions these were made in their best interest. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards provisions and applications were made when people’s liberty was restricted.

People were having their needs assessed and plans of care were in place. People were supported to access health care services. People received effective care that was based around each person’s individual needs and preferences. Risks to people were identified and plans were in place to make sure people were kept safe whilst ensuring their rights were promoted.  There were robust recruitment procedures and training opportunities.  Staff were supported and trained to ensure they were able to provide care at the required standard to ensure people’s needs were met.

People were supported to undertake activities of their choice. These took place both in the home and out in the community. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.

We saw that systems were in place to monitor and check the quality of care. There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and changes were put in place to improve the service. This meant that people benefitted from a service that was continually looking how it could provide better care. 

14 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We visited Ryland View on the 14th January 2014 no one knew we would be visiting. We spoke to fourteen people who lived at the home, seven relatives, nine members of staff and the manager. We looked at records relating to people's care and observed staff caring for them. One person said, 'It is good in here.'

Not all of the staff spoken to was able to tell us about people's needs so that they received care in a way that they needed or preferred. All the relatives told us they had had discussions about their relative's care and had been kept informed about their relative's health so they felt involved in their care. One relative said that, "I am very happy with the care.'

We saw that choices of meals were available to people living in the home. A person said to us, 'When I came in I had lost a lot of weight but the care I am getting has helped me put weight back on.'

We saw that people were relaxed in their environment and that systems were in place to keep people safe from harm. One person told us, "I am secure here; the staff give me great support."

The providers systems to ensure that people's medicines were being checked and managed safely did not always ensure that medicines had been given and signed for by nursing staff.

There were systems in place to monitor how the home was run, to ensure people received a quality service in a safe environment.

15 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited Ryland View on the 15th February 2013 no one knew we would be visiting. We spoke to ten people who lived at the home, five relatives, six staff and the manager.

Some of the people who lived at the home had dementia care needs. People with dementia are not always able to tell us about their experiences so we looked at records relating to their care and observed staff caring for them.

People told us and we saw that choices were offered and that people's views were sought and acted upon.

Staff spoken to was able to tell us about people's needs so that they received care in a way that they preferred. All five relatives told us they were consulted about their relative's care and kept informed about their relative's health so they felt involved in their care. One relative said that, "The care given is very very good".

We saw that people were relaxed in their environment and that systems were in place to keep people safe from harm. One of the people we spoke with said, "I wouldn't want to be anywhere else they really look after me well".

We saw that people were cared for in a clean and comfortable environment.

Medicines were prescribed and given appropriately to the people who used the service.

28 November 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 28 November 2011, checked the provider's records, looked at records of people who use services and reviewed information from stakeholders.At our previous visit in July 2011 three improvement actions were issued. This meant the service needed to improve outcomes for people with regards to developing plans of care for people. People's medicine plans needed clearer instructions so that people had their medication safely. We wanted to check the service provider was continuing to work on improving the quality of care for people.

6 July 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with seven people who use the service. Some people who were not able to express their full opinion of the service verbally, but did indicate their satisfaction with their care, and clearly related well to the staff supporting them. During our visit we used our observations of staff interacting with the people to gain an insight into their general well being.

We also spoke to other local authorities to ask if they had any concerns with the quality of care at Ryland View. The placing authorities did not identify to us any current major concerns regarding the delivery of care to people.

Nurses and care staff working in the service told us that the way people's care and support is managed, had improved.

Prior to our visit the service provider had told us that some records relating to people's care were in need of some attention, and that they had started to update care plans and risk assessments to reflect the needs of people. They told us that with the integration of Manby House onto Heronville House, progress of reviewing care plans had been much slower than expected. We were aware that key people to support these changes had unexpectedly left the service. The provider responded to this set back and told us that additional resources were being allocated to Heronville House in order to continue with the identified improvements.

30 November 2010 and 17 September 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

The people we met were not able to voice their opinions of the service. During our visit we used our observations of staff interacting with the people to gain an insight into their general well being.

Prior to our visit a complaint from a relative told us she was not happy with the standard of care provided. She was very concerned about the length of time it took for staff to seek medical attention for her mother. She told us her mother had unexplained injuries and that there had been delays in providing pain relief. The local authority told us that some people do not always receive the care that they need. They are concerned that there is a serious and significant lack of effective care planning and management of risks to people.

Our conversations with managers and people working in the service told us that they recognised that the way in which people's care and support is managed needs to improve. They told us that action is being taken to address these concerns. This includes introducing new care plans and reviewing the ways that risks in the home are assessed. They told us that there have been a number of positive changes to the way that they work since the new manager arrived.