Five Rivers Living Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question required improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation tosafe staffing. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People, relatives, and health and social care professionals were involved in people’s needs assessments. A relative told us, “We were fully involved in [person’s] care plan, the council visited, and [person] was assessed again recently looking at their care needs, it was a very informative process.”

People were assessed prior to coming to the service and assessments continued after they’d moved in. The registered manager said assessment was a continual process which involved staff getting to know people and how best to communicate with them.

Assessments covered people’s physical, mental health, sensory, social, and communication needs. Assessments informed care plans which were person-centred. For example, people, assisted by their relatives where appropriate, were encouraged to complete ‘life story books’ so staff could learn about their histories and the key events in their lives.

The provider worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards and ensured staff had the training they needed to apply these effectively.

At our last inspection there were gaps in staff training records and staff were not always adequately supervised.

At this inspection training and supervision schedules had improved. The provider had good systems for ensuring staff were up to date with current legislation, national standards, and evidence-based good practice guidance relevant to their roles.

Staff completed mandatory and additional training courses. The registered manager ensured staff understood their training by carrying out recorded competency checks and discussing good practice in regular supervision sessions.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people accessed different services.

Relatives said staff ensured people had access to healthcare professionals when necessary. A relative told us, “[Person] gets medical help when they need it, the GP deals with their care well.”

Since we last inspected the registered manager had met with the practice managers of a local GP surgery and arranged weekly ward rounds at the service. Staff at the service and GPs worked together to identify people who needed healthcare input and ensure they received the treatment they needed.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were encouraged to eat healthily. Meals met people’s preferences and were nutritionally balanced, with input from dieticians and speech and language therapists as needed.

Catering staff understood people’s dietary needs, including weight loss concerns, and specialist meals such as diabetic or fortified were provided. Nutritional supplements were supplied when needed, and snacks and drinks were offered to people throughout the day. People who required assistance with meals were supported by staff.
 

People and relatives said the food was good quality. A person told us they enjoyed the food and the meal they’d had that day. A relative commented, “The food is fantastic, really lovely, they don’t overload [person’s] plate as it puts them off, normal diet but [person] needs encouragement to eat, sample plates of the meals on offer are shown, drinks and snacks available.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Relatives commented on how people improved at the service. A relative told us, “Independence is encouraged, initially [person] was not walking, now they are.” Another relative said, “[Person] eats well, enjoys their food and has put on weight, staff look after [person] well.”

People made progress at the service resulting in positive outcomes. For example, the registered manager worked closely with 2 people to support them to increase their mobility. This was successful and led to an improvement in their mental well-being.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and respected peoples’ rights and decisions around consent. They ensured people understood what they were consenting to before delivering care, support or treatment.People and relatives said staff always asked for consent before providing support.

The provider worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and legal authorisations were in place if people were deprived of their liberty. These were kept under review and monitored. If people needed support to make decisions this was documented, including how decisions were made in their best interests.