You are here

Archived: Rydal Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 April 2016

The inspection took place on 24 February 2016. The inspection was unannounced.

Rydal is a residential care home with nursing based in the Lascelles area of Darlington, County Durham. The home provides personal care and nursing care to older people and people with dementia type conditions. It is situated close to the town centre, close to local amenities and transport links. The service was registered for 60 people and at the time of our inspection there were 41 people using the service.

The home 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.

We spoke with a range of different team members; care, nursing, kitchen, maintenance, laundry, activities co-ordinator and student nurses who told us they felt well supported and that the registered manager was supportive and approachable. Throughout the day we saw that people who used the service and staff were comfortable, relaxed and had a positive rapport with the registered manager and with each other. The atmosphere was welcoming, and relaxed. We saw that staff interacted with each other and the people who used the service in a friendly, supportive, positive manner.

From looking at people’s detailed care plans we saw they were in two parts. One held personal information and detailed accounts of care needs and a record of daily activity. The second file in addition to the care plan files was a person centred file that was stored in people’s bedrooms and these included a ‘one page profile’ that made good use of pictures, personal history and described individuals likes, dislikes, care and support needs. Both were regularly reviewed and updated by the care staff and the registered manager.

Individual care plans contained risk assessments. These identified risks and described the measures and interventions to be taken to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. The care records we viewed also showed us that people’s health was monitored and referrals were made to other health care professionals where necessary, for example: their GP, optician or chiropodist.

Our observations during the inspection showed us that people who used the service were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their individual needs and wishes.

When we looked at the staff training records they showed us staff were supported and able to maintain and develop their skills through training and development opportunities were accessible at this service.

The staff we spoke with confirmed they attended a range of training opportunities but not in dementia awareness. These types of specific courses help to raise awareness and meet the needs of the people who use the service and those living with dementia.

We saw that the physical environment throughout the home was not dementia friendly and did not always reflect best practice in dementia care or meet the standards set out in national guidelines.

They told us they had regular supervisions and appraisals with the registered manager, where they had the opportunity to discuss their care practice and identify further mandatory and vocational training needs. We also viewed records that showed us there were robust recruitment processes in place.

We observed how the service administered medicines and how they did this safely. We looked at how records were kept and spoke with the nursing staff about how this was carried out and how senior staff was trained to administer medicine and we found that the medicine administering process was safe.

People were encouraged to participate in activities that were organised, including, outings and regular entertainers. We saw staff spending their time positively engaging with people as a group an

Inspection areas



Updated 16 April 2016

There was sufficient staff on duty to safely cover the lay out of the building and the needs of the people using the service.

The service had an efficient system to manage accidents and incidents and learn from them so they were less likely to happen again.

Staff knew what to do when safeguarding concerns were raised and they followed effective policies and procedures.

Medicines were managed, reviewed and stored safely.


Requires improvement

Updated 16 April 2016

This service was not always effective.

The environment of the service was not adapted to be dementia friendly.

The service had developed a supervision structure to regularly supervise staff.

Staff were not appropriately trained with the skills and knowledge to meet people�s assessed needs, preferences and choices relating to dementia awareness.

The service understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, its Codes of Practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and put them into practice to protect people.



Updated 16 April 2016

This service was caring.

People and their families were valued and treated with kindness and compassion and their dignity was respected.

Care staff were knowledgeable of, and people had access to advocacy services to represent them.

People were understood and had their individual needs met, including needs around social isolation, age and disability.



Updated 16 April 2016

This service was responsive.

People received care and support that reflected their preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs.

People and those that mattered to them were actively involved and able to make their views known about their care, treatment and support.

People had a range of activities and outings to access, that they valued.

A robust complaints and compliments procedure was in place and used appropriately.



Updated 16 April 2016

This service was well led.

The manager had an approach that supportive and promoted an open culture.

Staff were supported to question practice and those who raised concerns and whistle-blowers were protected.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to continually review the service including safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents. Investigations into whistleblowing, safeguarding, complaints/concerns and accidents/incidents were thorough.

There were good community links and partnership approaches to tackling social isolation and inclusion.