Ridgeway Court 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.

This is the first assessment for this new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Records did not always provide staff with detailed guidance about people’s individual needs and preferences including their social and emotional needs. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance to meet people’s individualised wishes. Some staff also lacked the knowledge and understanding of how to meet some people’s needs due to not completing core training. As previously stated, staff had not been provided with best practice guidance to meet some people’s needs for example, RSRCRC guidance. This meant staff were not always able to provide care that was person centred. The provider and manager told us action plans have been developed to address this.

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

The manager told us they aimed to work in partnership with social and healthcare professionals to ensure care was joined up. A social care professional confirmed the manager and staff worked in partnership with them. Feedback from the local authority confirmed the manager and provider were working with them to improve standards and an action plan was in place.

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

The manager had knowledge of the accessible information standard (AIS) for meeting the information and communication needs of people with a disability, or sensory loss.We were advised pictorial aids were in place to aid communication with people and for people to use to reflect their pain if they could not verbally communicate this. However, we did not observe these being used during our assessment of the service.

People’s communication needs were recorded in their care plans, and staff had completed relevant training to aid their communication with people. We saw some procedures such as the complaint procedure was provided in easy read and were displayed around the home. We observed staff communicated with people in accordance with their needs. Regular newsletters were shared to keep people and their relatives informed about life in the home.

We did observe an information board detailing the weather and some clocks were not accurate which we raised with the manager to address, as this could potentially confuse people.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to raise any concerns. One person said, “I have never made any complaints, but I would tell the staff if I was not happy.” Relatives who had raised concerns, told us they felt listened to and their concerns were addressed to their satisfaction.

A complaints procedure was in place, and the provider recorded formal complaints, and a tracker was in place which reflected these and the outcomes. Where needed actions and lessons learnt were implemented where improvements were needed in response to these. For example, training for staff, reviewing systems and procedures in place, and disciplinary action.

We found when people or their relatives raised complaints about laundry, food and missing items these were not recorded collectively as formal complaints but recorded on individual records. This meant we could not review these, and the actions taken to address the issues raised and the provider could not be assured they had been addressed.

Records demonstrated ‘residents’ and relatives’ meetings were held regularly to support people to provide feedback about their experiences of living in the home.

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

Care records demonstrated, and relatives confirmed people were supported to attend routine and emergency appointments with a variety of healthcare professionals. Where people could not access community services easily, staff arranged visits to be undertaken at the home. A relative told us, “[Person] are seeing the optician next month, we only have to mention it to the staff, and they organise it for us.”

The manager told us there was contact with the GP surgery weekly where they discussed people’s healthcare needs and sought advice.

Staff and leaders did not always consider those at risk of unequal experiences or outcomes, resulting in care that was not consistently personalised.

Not all staff had completed core training in relation to Equality and Diversity to enable them to have the skills and knowledge about the Equality Act and to be aware of some of the challenges people faced in experiencing equitable outcomes.

We saw people’s assessment of needs and care plans considered people’s protected characteristics and how these would be supported in most of the records we viewed. However, they did not consider where people, due to their choice or health remained in their bedrooms and the impact this had on them not being able to access the same meaningful interactions and activities as people in the communal areas. This meant some people where at risk of being isolated and lonely.

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.

Where people were willing to discuss their end of life and emergency situations, information was recorded in their care plans. An end-of-life questionnaire had recently been completed with people whose care plan contained brief or no information. We were told by the management team these people’s care plans would be updated soon with this information. People’s wishes were respected if they chose not to discuss their end of life at this current time.

Training records shared with us showed not all staff had completed end of life training which meant some staff may not have the skills and knowledge to ensure people received compassionate and dignified care at the end of their life. As mentioned previously, action was being taken by the provider to address the gaps in staff training.