Five Rivers Living Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question required improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation togood governance. 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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The culture of the service was discussed at team meetings and during staff training and supervision. Staff who best demonstrated the provider’s values were commended and rewarded for qualities such as ‘calm demeanour, ‘team spirit’ and ‘support for colleagues’. This meant staff understood what was expected of them at work.

Staff had a team approach and were flexible in their roles. For example, the administrator checked people were wearing sunscreen before they went into the garden, and the housekeeper ensured people had cold drinks close by. This showed all staff put people’s well-being first.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The nominated individual and registered manager were based full-time at the service and led by example, modelling inclusive behaviours and open and cooperative relationships. They continually engaged with everyone at the service. A staff member told us, “They are great, they’re always out of their offices talking to people, relatives and staff. They give the home a family and community feel.”

We saw people and relatives approach the nominated individual and registered manager on numerous occasions and they were always met with kindness and patience. It was evident the nominated individual and registered manager knew people well. A relative said, “It’s a well-led home, never short of supplies, The [registered] manager is very approachable, well organised and professional, also the deputy manager.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy which staff understood and knew how to use. However, all staff we spoke with said they were always listened to and would go straight to the registered manager or nominated individual if they had any concerns. A staff member said, “They care as much as we do. If there was anything wrong, they would be straight on to it. We’re a team here, nobody tolerates poor care.”

People and relatives said they could raise concerns and issues whenever they needed to by speaking with leaders and staff. A relative said, “Any worries I would go to the [registered] manager who is very friendly.” Another relative told us, “I have never needed to complain but if I did it would be actioned, the [registered] manager is very forthright.”

People and relatives were invited to attend regular meetings to share their views on the service. A relative said the meetings were ‘very helpful’ and they were always asked for their opinion. The nominated individual did a daily walkaround at the service to check on people’s well-being and ensure the service was running safely and effectively.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider’s staff training programme addressed the diverse needs of staff by ensuring courses were accessible, and by mentoring staff who needed additional support.

Staff had cultural competency training, so they understood people’s diverse cultural backgrounds, including their dietary preferences and religious beliefs. This enabled staff to provide culturally sensitive care, and to maintain an inclusive and welcoming workplace for staff from a variety backgrounds.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

At our last inspection the provider’s quality assurance and oversight processes did not always identify risk. At this inspection risks were identified, addressed, and used to develop improvement plans for the service.

The provider used a system of daily, weekly, monthly, and other audits to ensure all areas of the service were running safely and effectively. These led to action plans that were monitored, reviewed, and completed. Records showed the service had continually improved.

The registered manager ensured accidents and incidents were promptly reported to CQC and the local authority where appropriate.

Relatives told us the service had improved. A relative said, “There was a previous poor inspection but now we have open dialogue and actions in progress. It’s much more than just talk. We have visitors’ badges [which relatives had requested], communal events, and regular emails with information.” Another relative commented, “I have more improved confidence now, communication is much stronger, and security is good.”

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Staff worked closely with specialist services to ensure people’s needs were met in their entirety. For example, staff collaborated with speech and language therapists (SALT) to support people with swallowing and communication challenges. Timely referrals were made, and care plans updated based on SALT recommendations.

Partnership working meant the service was able to deliver comprehensive, person-centred care that promoted people’s well-being and dignity. Multidisciplinary meetings were held regularly to review people’s progress and align care strategies with input from the different professionals involved.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Since we last inspected the provider has worked closely with the local authority to improve the quality of the service. This has had a positive outcome with care plans, staff interactions with people, and the atmosphere at the service, much improved.

Since taking up their role at the service the registered manager has focused on improving the culture of the service, initially working on the floor alongside care staff to model good-quality person-centred care. The nominated individual has supported the registered manager and staff, ensuring they have the training and resources they need to bring about positive change.