We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ravenhill Way on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Ravenhill Way, you can give feedback on this service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.or.uk
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they felt safe and thought that staff were nice.
A relative told us, “I feel that we are listened to and believed at Ravenhill…all the staff are really good and know how to help [my relative]. [My relative] is getting all the help that they need and whatever the staff are doing is working as it has made a massive difference, [my relative] is so much better than they were.”
The registered manager had systems and processes in place ensuring risks were well managed and care was personalised and reviewed.
Staffing levels, skills and experience were suitable to meet the needs of people and varied according to activities.
The provider implemented safe systems for the management of medicines which included staff training and assessments of staff competency. Staff supported some people to manage their own medicine and this had been risk assessed.
Staff had a good understanding of preventing the spread of infection and used one use personal protective equipment, colour coded equipment and they encouraged good hand hygiene.
The registered manager shared lessons learnt with staff and managed complaints and concerns in an open and honest way.
Staff supported people to have the greatest choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff supported people to choose menus and be involved with cooking meals and drinks, encouraging healthy diets and lifestyles.
People had access to specialised healthcare when needed.
People decorated their rooms in ways that they preferred and which met individual tastes. The environment was clean and odour free but the décor needed refreshing in places. The registered manager was aware of this and planning to make improvements.
The registered manager used systems such as training, policies and care plans to ensure that staff had the skills and knowledge to fulfil their roles. End of life support was not currently needed but training and support could be accessed should it be necessary.
Staff supported people to plan and access a variety of activities but motivation of people to attend was low. Some people said they experienced boredom due to this. The registered manager and staff team were trying different ideas to help motivate people to participate and take up the opportunities offered.
The registered manager showed ways that they were working with other agencies and providers to share ideas and improve services.
The service met the characteristics of good in all areas. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (14/04/2019). Overall, since the last inspection, the service rating has remained the same.
Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on previous rating.
The service provides care and support for up to 10 people living with mental health needs, some of whom receive care and treatment under the Care Programme Approach (CPA) and Community Treatment Orders (CTO), of the Mental Health Act 2007. There were seven people being supported by the service at the time of this inspection. In addition two people were visiting on a trail basis in preparation for them moving to the service.
There is a registered manager in post. 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 safe and the provider had effective systems in place to safeguard them.
There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to the staff on how risks to people could be minimised. People’s medicines were managed safely and administered by trained staff.
People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. They were supported by staff who were caring, kind and friendly. They were supported to have sufficient food and drinks, and to access other health and social care services when required. People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests.
The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient staff to support people safely. Staff had received supervision, support and effective training that enabled them to support people appropriately.
The manager and staff understood their roles and responsibilities to provide people’s care and treatment in accordance with the requirements of the Care Programme Approach (CPA) and Community Treatment Orders (CTO). They sought people’s consent prior to support being provided and care was provided in a way that promoted people’s dignity and rights.
The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people, their representatives, and health and social care professionals. They acted on the comments received to continuously improve the quality of the service.
The registered manager provided stable leadership and managerial oversight. They encouraged staff involvement in the development of the service. The provider’s quality monitoring processes had been used effectively to drive improvements.
We saw people's needs were assessed and appropriate care and support plans were in place. We found people's care and support plans were reviewed regularly with their involvement. Where necessary, other health and social care professionals were involved in people's care and treatment. People consented to their care or treatment.
We saw staff were appropriately trained, supervised and supported to provide effective and safe care. People we spoke with told us they were happy with the support they received from staff.
People lived in a clean and well maintained home. The provider completed regular environmental audits to ensure that people were protected from the risks of unsafe premises.
The care plans were clear and a daily needs pen picture in the front of the plan meant that if anyone needed key information quickly they were able to access this.
Staff had completed safeguarding training and were clear about the aspects of abuse when we spoke with them about it. There was a policy in place relating to the company process and this was expanded on by the detailed policy developed by the local safeguarding authorities.
The medication system was secure; staff understood the process and people's medication was managed effectively. Any compliance issues were promptly reported for health professional input.
The staff team was mainly made up from long standing team members who had worked at the service for some years. The staff team had been trained for aspects of their job role such as medication administration, health and safety and personal safety.
The provider had put in place a system to record and investigate any complaints that were made. At the time of the visit on 17 December 2012 there were no complaints under investigation.
People said that they made their own decisions about how they spent their time. They also said that they had regular 'house' meetings at which they discussed a range of issues affecting individuals and the running of the home.