Ridge House Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans genuinely reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs and staff supported people in line with those plans. Staff knew people well, and we observed positive interactions between staff and people.

The registered manager understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked in a collaborative way to ensure care was joined up, including with people’s relatives. At the time of this assessment, people received support from a stable staff team, that they knew well. People’s protected characteristics were respected, and staff understood the needs of the local community.

The registered manager supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care plans contained information where people needed to be supported to access information in different ways. This met the requirements of theAccessible Information Standardby identifying, recording, flagging,sharing and meeting the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Staff and people’s relatives told us the provider did not listen to feedback, act on concerns raised or respond to complaints in a compassionate, constructive way.

Staff were not confident their views or concerns would be respected, taken seriously or treated compassionately, without negative repercussions.Where staff had raised concerns, we saw the provider was hostile and took an authoritarian approach, suggesting staff should find alternative employment if they did not like the way the service operated.

The registered manager had, however, implemented regular surveys to give people living at the service and their relatives the opportunity to feedback. They had made changes as a result of that feedback, for example, creating a welcome pack for when people moved in. One person’s relative told us the registered manager was, “very approachable.” Staff told us they were able to share concerns openly with the registered manager, who escalated concerns to the provider.

The registered manager made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported to access external healthcare services, and arrangements were made for health professionals to visit people at Ridge House where required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff understood people’s rights and supported people to minimise barriers and find solutions.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s care plans contained detailed information about their plans for the future, and what mattered to them at the end of their life.