You are here

Archived: Rider House Care Centre Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 8 October 2015

We inspected this service on 2 September 2015. The inspection was unannounced. At our previous inspection in May 2013, the service was meeting the regulations that we checked.

Rider House Care Centre provides accommodation residential, nursing and palliative care for up to 41 older people. There were 34 people who used the service at the time of our visit.

The service 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.

The home was in need of repair and refurbishment to ensure it met people’s needs and improved their wellbeing.

Mental capacity assessments had not been undertaken for a person who was unable to make decisions and people’s consent was not always gained before care interventions were delivered.

People’s preferences regarding meals were not always sought or considered and staff did not always support people to maintain their dignity effectively. Activities were available but these does not always meet people’s hobbies or interests.

Assessments were in place that identified risks to people’s health and safety and care plans directed staff on how to minimise these identified risks. However staff were not always following these to ensure people’s safety was maintained.

The needs of people and the staffing levels in place had an impact on the timeliness of support people received.

The provider sought people’s views but this was not done on a regular basis and feedback was only given to the registered manager if concerns were identified.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living in the home. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of the importance of keeping people safe. They understood their responsibilities for reporting any concerns regarding potential abuse.

Plans were in place to respond to emergencies to ensure people were supported appropriately.

Staff were suitably recruited to ensure the risks to people’s safety were minimised. Processes were in place to ensure people received their medicines in a safe way. The staff team received training to meet people’s needs and were supported by the registered manager.

People were supported to maintain good health and accessed the services of other health professionals when they needed specialist support.

People and their relatives were involved in planning and agreeing how they were cared for and supported. People felt comfortable raising concerns which demonstrated that a transparent and open management approach was in place. People knew how to make a complaint and we saw these were investigated.

The registered manager undertook audits to identify risks and take action as needed to promote people’s safety and wellbeing.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 8 October 2015

The service was not consistently safe.

Some areas of the home were in need of repair and refurbishment to ensure it met people’s needs and enhanced their wellbeing. Risks to people were identified and care records described the actions required to minimise risks but staff did not always follow this guidance. The staffing levels in place did not always meet people’s care needs in a timely way. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. Staff were confident any concerns they raised would be listened to and appropriate action taken by the registered manager. The recruitment practices in place checked staff’s suitability to work with people and medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 8 October 2015

The service was not consistently effective.

People’s ability to consent to care was not always identified to ensure the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was followed. Staff did not always obtain people’s consent before they delivered care. Staff did not always follow guidance to ensure people’s dietary needs were met. People were supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services when needed. Staff were supported in their role by the training provided and support of the registered manager.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 8 October 2015

The service was not consistently caring.

People liked the staff but consideration was not always given to the timeliness of the support people received, such as waiting for their lunch time meal. People’s choice in meals was not always considered. Staff were not always vigilant in ensuring people were supported to maintain their dignity. People’s visitors told us they were involved in discussions about how their relatives were cared for and supported.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 8 October 2015

The service was not consistently responsive.

People’s care plans were regularly reviewed and updated when changes in their individual needs or abilities were identified. Staff supported people to maintain outside interests but activities inside the home were not individualised to meet people’s interests. Complaints were responded to appropriately. The provider’s complaints policy and procedure were accessible to people who lived at the home and their relatives.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 8 October 2015

The service was not consistently well-led.

People were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service but this was not done consistently. The provider did not share the overall results with the registered manager. People told us the registered manager was approachable and managed the home in an open and transparent way. There were quality assurance checks in place to monitor and improve the service. The manager had fed back areas for improvement to the provider but was unsure when action was being taken to address these improvements.