Ringway Mews Care 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.

The provider was in breach of regulations regarding need for consent.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service since Springcare became the provider of Ringway Mews. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (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.

Assessments of people’s care were undertaken when they first moved to Ringway Mews and people were involved with these if they were able to.

Monthly reviews of care plans were undertaken and relatives said they were part of this process. One relative told us, “It is really important from my perspective to review the care plan and also anything generally. They always consult me.” Another relative said, “Initially I was involved in the care plan to ensure they got everything correct. I would say what she wants and what she needed as I have power of attorney.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

We saw people being supported by staff to eat and drink,if they were unable to do this themselves. Other people were able to eat independently either in their bedroom, or at the dining table. Some people’s care plans made reference to them liking to eat at the table with others, although we observed them sitting in the lounge area eating on their own.

We received mixed feedback about the quality of food. One relative told us, “The food looks disgusting and the portions are not big enough. I took some photos where things had all been cut in half.” Another relative said, “I visited recently and the only choice was a white bread sandwich and some small vegetables. There was no choice.”

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 moved between different services.

The service worked in partnership with other professionals such as GP's and dietitians to support people to access healthcare when they needed it, although when this was done, the information was not always clearly recorded in people’s care plans.

The management team and staff demonstrated how when a person's needs had changed, they had promptly engaged with several services to ensure the person's needs were fully met and understood.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Some people living at the home were living with specific conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy, or required the use of a catheter. Although we found effective systems were in place to provide the care people required in these areas, specific care plans were not always in place to provide staff with the information they required.

Many people who lived at the home needed assistance from staff to brush their teeth. Some people didn’t have oral health assessments in place and accurate records about when people received support in this area weren’t always maintained by staff.

People were supported to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People told us they were supported to live healthier lives and their choices were respected. One relative said, (Person) goes out on all the trips if they wants to go and it is good for people to get out of the home. (Person) takes part in lots of activities. It is (person’s) choice to be involved in everything they can.”

Staff told us how they supported people to eat healthy meals and we saw fruit and vegetables were available on menus. People were able to go outside into patio areas on the individual units at the home to access fresh air and were referred to health care professionals to support their wellbeing.

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.

People living at the home experience good outcomes as a result of the care and support they received whilst living at Ringway Mews. One relative told us, “(Person’s) mobility has improved since she’s been at the home. (Person) has gone from needing to be hoisted to being able to walk with a frame and a member of staff.” Another relative told us, “(Person) is known for falling so they have lowered the bed, put in a crash mat and used bed rails to help keep them safe.” A third relative added, “(Person) was losing so much weight at home and is now putting weight on again. That is down to eating more”.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.Correct processes weren’t always followed when people didn’t have the capacity to consent to the care they received.

We saw capacity assessments had been completed and best interest decisions undertaken if people were unable to make their own choices and decisions. However, these weren’t always carried out for people who were receiving one to one care. We also observed some people’s movements being restricted by staff when they attempted to mobilise. A capacity assessment had not been completed for these practices.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were completed where any restrictions were in place which could compromise people’s safety. These were re-applied for when they expired through the local authority. Staff had all received Mental Capacity Act and DoLS training.