You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 June 2014
Date of Publication: 20 August 2014
Inspection Report published 20 August 2014 PDF | 79.42 KB


Inspection carried out on 16 June 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector. We looked at our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw that staff treated people who used the service with respect. We noted that the needs of people were addressed at all times. Interactions between staff and people who used the service were friendly, respectful and positive. Staff demonstrated patience in reassuring and interacting with people. People who used the service told us that they felt safe living there. We saw that risk assessments designed to keep people safe were updated regularly and with the involvement of the people they related to. Staff told us that they had received training in safeguarding and this was confirmed through training records. As a result the service is safe.

Is the service effective?

The service is effective.People had links with local advocacy services although people were able to voice their own views and opinions through house meetings. People told us that they were listened to.

People’s health and care needs were assessed on a regular basis and this work was done into conjunction with the people they related to.

Is the service caring?

Our observations noted that staff were attentive to the needs of the people and that their work focussed exclusively on people’s needs. People we spoke with told us that staff cared about them. They told us that they were “great”, “caring”, and “alright”. As a result the staff team is caring.

Is the service responsive?

The service responds to the needs of people. The service had a quality assurance processes in place which sought to include all the views of those connected with Rivacre House. This was done through supervision and appraisal of staff, quality audits from the provider and other audits.. Staff considered that they were listened to and supported by the provider. We saw evidence in healthcare records which demonstrated that as soon as new health conditions arose, the staff team ensured that people received prompt referrals to medical agencies. More general health check-ups were available to people as well. We also saw evidence through care plans that as needs changed; plans were amended and reviewed on a regular basis. We saw that given the specialism of the service in supporting people with their mental health, that this was a paramount consideration.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a manager who was registered with us to carry out their roles. We noted that the service always told us when there were significant incidents. The service remained was part of a larger organisation which had systems in place to ensure that people received a person centred level of support. We saw evidence in care plans that the service worked with other agencies to ensure positive outcomes for people. Staff told us that they felt supported by the manager in their role .As a result the service is well-led.