Ravensdale

Ravensdale is a residential care home providing accommodation for people who require personal and nursing care for up 23 people. There were 18 people using the service at the time we inspected. The service provides support to people with dementia, mental health needs and physical disabilities.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There were enough staff to provide people with safe care. People were safe from the risk of abuse and relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe. Risks to people were appropriately assessed and managed. Staff knew people well and supported people in a person-centred way. People received their medicines as prescribed.

The registered manager and provider had good oversight of the service and strived to improve the service further. The registered manager engaged well with people, relatives and staff; feedback was used to shape the service. Staff worked well with other professionals.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was good (published11 March 2022).

Why we inspected

We received concerns in relation to the safety and governance of the service. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

The overall rating for the service has not changed based on the findings of this inspection. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Ravensdale on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The service monitored the impact of the pandemic on people’s mental health and wellbeing. The service supported visiting and the role of essential care givers.

Staff wore appropriate PPE and had good knowledge of the requirements of isolating.

People continued to be supported to access the community and take part in activities, they enjoyed, within the home.

Ravensdale is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was no 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.

The provider’s operations manager had been managing the service on a day to day basis since January 2018 and had applied to the CQC to become the registered manager. In addition to this, an experienced interim manager had been appointed in June 2018 to give further support to the service and recruitment for a registered manager remained on-going. The management team were also supported by a clinical nurse manager. The management team showed a commitment to running a well led service for the benefit of the people who used the service.

People told us they felt safe with the support offered. Staff could describe and understood their responsibilities to support people to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were recruited safely which ensured they were of a good character to work with people who used this service. Staff met people's needs in a safe way and were overall, available when people needed and wanted support. Plans to improve permanent staffing were in place.

Systems for managing medicines safely were overall, effective. The management team responded swiftly to some issues we identified with medicines support to ensure safe medicines management. Staff were trained in medication administration and their competency was checked regularly.

Staff training was updated regularly and staff had regular supervision that helped identify training needs and improve the quality of care. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and said they felt well supported by a management team who were open and approachable.

People were encouraged to eat a healthy, balanced diet of their choice. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals in order to meet their health needs

People said they were treated well. People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was protected and staff understood people's individual needs in relation to their care. Support plans were person centred and reflected individual's preferences.

People were supported to have maximum 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. The management team and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They had made appropriate referrals to the relevant authorities to ensure people's rights were protected.

Care records contained enough information to guide staff on the care and support required and contained information relating to what was important to the person and how any risks were managed. These were reviewed regularly and showed involvement of people who used the service or their relatives. People were supported to pursue social interests relevant to their needs, wishes and interests.

There was an effective complaints procedure for people to raise their concerns. The majority of people were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken to resolve any complaints they had. Information on raising concerns was available in accessible formats.

There were systems in place to make sure managers and staff learnt from any incidents such as accidents and incidents. The provider had systems in place that continued to be effective in assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.

We found the needs of people who used the service were fully assessed before they moved into the home and that they and their relatives were involved in the assessments. People told the provider and staff about their daily routines and their likes and dislikes.

The home was in good condition, well maintained and decorated to a high standard. There were no malodours and furnishings and carpets were free from damage or stains. One relative told us 'It's beautiful, the rooms are lovely.' Cleaning procedures took account of good practice guidance and the staff were aware of the measures they should take to prevent and control the spread of infections.

The provider had appropriate procedures for the recruitment of new staff and carried out appropriate checks of their character and ability to carry out their role prior to them startng work at the service.

There were procedures to monitor the quality of the service and these were regularly assessed by the provider. The provider sought the views of people who used the service, their relatives and staff and acted on the findings to improve the service.