We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ridgeway 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 Ridgeway, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service: The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways; people's support focused on them having choice and control over their lives. The service promoted people’s independence and was inclusive. Everyone we spoke with was positive in their feedback. Comments included; “I am happy here. I feel safe” and “Yes, I do like the staff here.”
People continued to be safe at Ridgeway. Staff knew what their responsibilities were in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse. The provider followed safe recruitment practices.
Staff encouraged people to actively participate in activities, pursue their interests and to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them. People felt a part of their local community and were supported to use local resources such as library, community park and pubs.
Staff understood the importance of promoting people’s choices and provided the support people required while promoting and maintaining independence. This enabled people to achieve positive outcomes and promoted a good quality of life.
People were involved in the running of the service and were consulted on key issues that may affect them.
People received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services. Each person had an up to date support plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. These were reviewed regularly.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published 21 October 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection.
At this inspection, we found that the overall rating remained the same.
Ridgeway Care Home is a large semi-detached property providing accommodation on three floors. It is located in a residential area opposite a large park and within walking distance of shops and accessible public transport links. Care and support is provided to adults with learning disabilities with limited verbal communication abilities and challenging behaviours. The home accommodates up to six people. At the time we visited there were five people living at the home.
There was a registered manager at the home. 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.
At our previous inspection on 08 September 2015, we made several recommendations to the provider and registered manager. We asked them to seek and follow guidance on how to develop positive behaviour support planning for people in the home. To seek advice and guidance from a reputable source, about providing diverse, meaningful activities for people with learning disabilities in accordance with their individual needs and choices. Seek advice and guidance from a reputable source, about how to keep records well organised or adequately maintained in a consistent manner and about the user friendly and personalised communication Standards. The provider submitted an action plan to show how they planned to improve the service by December 2015.
Care plans identified clear guidelines for supporting people with behaviour that other people may find challenging. The guidelines included clear descriptions of the behaviour, descriptions of possible and probable causes and strategies for supporting each person to become less anxious and calmer. We found that these guidelines were consistent.
People were involved in assessment and care planning processes. Their support needs, likes and lifestyle preferences had been carefully considered and were reflected within the care and support plans available.
Our observation on the day showed that people had a variety of activities. Activities were diverse enough to meet people’s needs and the home was responsive to people’s activity needs.
Care files included communication passports, which provided clear descriptions of how people communicate.
People had access to nutritious food that met their needs. We observed that people freely made their cold and hot drinks when they wanted them. The provider had fitted a new accessible kitchen that promoted people’s independence in the home.
The provider and registered manager had suitable processes in place to safeguard people from different forms of abuse. Staff had been trained in safeguarding people and in the provider’s whistleblowing policy. They were confident that they could raise any matters of concern with the registered manager, or the local authority safeguarding team.
There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs. Staff attended regular training courses. Staff were supported by their manager and felt able to raise any concerns they had or suggestions to improve the service to people.
They had robust recruitment practices in place. Applicants were assessed as suitable for their job roles. Refresher training was provided at regular intervals. All staff received induction training at start of their employment.
The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People knew how to make a complaint and these were managed in accordance with the provider’s policy.
Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The staffing structure ensured that staff knew who they were accountable to. Staff meetings were held frequently. Staff told us they felt free to raise any concerns and make suggestions at any time to the registered manager and knew they would be listened to.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw that various audits had been undertaken. The registered manager and provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained.
We inspected this service on 08 September 2015. This was an unannounced inspection.
Ridgeway Care Home is a large semi-detached property, providing accommodation on three floors. It is located in a residential area opposite a large park and within walking distance of shops and accessible public transport links. Care and support is provided to adults with learning disabilities with limited verbal communication and challenging behaviours. The home accommodates up to six people. At the time we visited there were five people living at the home and one person in hospital.
There was a registered manager at the home. 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.
Care plans identified clear guidelines for supporting people with behaviour that other people may find challenging. The guidelines included clear descriptions of the behaviour, descriptions of possible and probable causes and strategies for supporting each person to become less anxious and calmer. However, these guidelines were inconsistent. We have made a recommendation about this.
Our observation on the day showed that people had limited choices of activities. Activities were not diverse enough to meet people’s needs and the home was not always responsive to people’s activity needs. We have made a recommendation about this.
The registered manager and provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained. However, they had not quickly identified and responded to gaps, inconsistencies and contradictions in records which required addressing. We have made a recommendation about this.
Care files did not include communication passports, which would have provided clear descriptions of how people communicate. We have made a recommendation about this.
People were protected against the risk of abuse; they felt safe and staff recognised the signs of abuse or neglect and what to look out for. They understood their role and responsibilities to report any concerns and were confident in doing so.
The home had risk assessments in place to identify and reduce risks that may be involved when meeting people’s needs. There were risk assessments related to people’s needs and details of how the risks could be reduced. This enabled the staff to take immediate action to minimise or prevent harm to people.
There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs and promote people’s safety. Staff had been provided with relevant training and they attended regular supervision and team meetings. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and the lines of accountability within the home.
The registered manager followed safe recruitment practices to help ensure staff were suitable for their job role. Staff described the management as very open, supportive and approachable. Staff talked positively about their jobs.
Staff were caring and we saw that they treated people with respect during the course of our inspection.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found that the registered manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one and was aware of a recent Supreme Court Judgement which widened and clarified the definition of a deprivation of liberty.
People were involved in assessment and care planning processes. Their support needs, likes and lifestyle preferences had been carefully considered and were reflected within the care and support plans available.
Health care plans were in place and people had their health needs regularly monitored. Regular reviews were held and people were supported to attend appointments with various health and social care professionals, to ensure they received treatment and support as required.
People were supported to have choices and received food and drink at regular times throughout the day. People spoke positively about the choice and quality of food available.
People knew how to make a complaint and complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.
Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The staffing structure ensured that staff knew who they were accountable to. Staff meetings were held frequently. Staff told us they felt free to raise any concerns and make suggestions at any time to the registered manager and knew they would be listened to.