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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Care planning processes required significant improvement. The majority of care plans needed to be more person centred and most people’s records were incomplete.

The relatives we spoke with were generally positive about their experience and felt involved in their relative’s care. This did not match the concerns we identified. Assessments were not regularly reviewed and updated to make sure the information was current. Staff did not keep clear, comprehensive care records to support reviews and evidence of appropriate action taken in response to changes noted. Several care plans appeared to be copied and pasted with different people’s names inserted into the care plans. Therefore, we could not be assured the care, support and treatment was always meeting people’s needs and individual outcomes as expected.

One relative told us, “They need to improve the documentation like care plans, and records like what they’re doing, when [relative] is turned, when [relative] is showered, what [relative] has eaten etc. They could keep the care plan in [relative’s] room.” Most of these records were incomplete. We could not be assured people’s care was always being delivered.

The manager had been ensuring people who needed to be, were reassessed. They told us, “When I started several residents was not placed correctly in the home. We contacted external professionals, and we have moved these residents to environments more suited to their needs.” External professionals and staff told us there were more people who needed to be reassessed.

It was not always clear if people were supported to manage their dietary needs and associated risks. This included where people had complex needs, from the risk of poor nutrition, dehydration, swallowing problems and other medical conditions that affected their health.

For people at risk of malnutrition, nutritional intakewas not consistently recorded. People had multiple gaps in their records despite their care plan stating it should be recorded due to risk of weight loss for example.

Care plans were not person centred. People’s food preferenceswere not detailed. If they required a modified diet, to manage the risk of choking, care plans did not evidence people had been involved in planning the type of meals they preferred. A folder in the kitchen did record what people liked and disliked but lacked sufficient detail.

Weights were recorded, and there was no evidence of significant weight loss. Some families told us their relative’s weight had improved at the home. This was recorded in a paper file as the electronic care plan was unable to record this information.

A new food provider was introduced in March 2026 in response to people’s complaints about the food. The relatives we spoke with were generally positive about the food and had noted the improvement. They told us, “Overall [relative] is a good eater. They have got outside caterers in now and [relative] is eating better and eating more nutritional food. I’ve moaned about the food in the past when [relative] was given just a sausage roll for their meal. [Relative] is now getting bigger portions and better-quality food.” and “[Relative] had lost 12 kilos in 3 months, and they were skipping meals but is doing well now…[relative] has regained weight.”

Staff expressed concerns about being too busy during mealtimes, to give the people who required additional support, the support they needed. Inspectors also observed this during the assessment. The support was not consistent. We observed one person receiving excellent support and we also observed several occasions where people did not receive the required support. One relative told us, “I worry if they haven’t got enough staff as [relative] needs to be prompted to turn her head to eat. Sometimes by the time they get round to feeding her the food is not always hot enough for her.”

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people.

There was a high level of dissatisfaction reported to us by staff. Most staff we spoke with expressed concerns about poor staffing levels and how this impacted on their ability to deliver timely, consistent, person-centred care and support. They told us, “There is no support, we are constantly understaffed and they don’t care when the staff are doing numerous extra things each day. Every day is a dread to come in to work” and “Some staff have raised concerns about staffing levels during busy shifts. There are no hostesses or house keepers in some busy shifts which impact the quality-of-care residents receive and also causes fatigue and stress among staff.”

Care plans and care records were not always clear and contemporaneous. We could not be confident staff could always have an accurate understanding of a person’s needs from the information available.

There was mixed feedback from health and social care professionals. Some reported a marked improvement since the current manager had been in place. They told us, “The clinical team are always received in a professional and welcoming way. The new manager is always approachable, and I do think they listen to any concerns we have and tries to act on them and to keep us updated” and “The regular staff are effective, caring and responsive and have worked hard through the recent changes. I feel things are more positive now than before.”

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.

Staff did not appear to have the time to empower and support people to be involved in their care or manage their own health. It was not clear if people were encouraged and supported to make healthier choices. We had significant concerns about oral care as people did not always have toothbrushes when we checked and records were often not completed by staff to say when oral care had been provided. There was no evidence of best interest’s meetings to discuss alternative approaches when people were refusing oral care.

We saw evidence people were referred to other external professionals as required, and we also received positive feedback from families about this. They told us, “Yes, they’re very good, very responsive. [Relative] gets a lot of chest infections, so they get the GP” and “Yes, they do, The District Nurse and the GP come in, and I’m kept informed.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There was anecdotal evidence of some improvements in people’s care shared by the manager, external professionals and families. However, there was no effective system in place to monitor the effectiveness of people’s care. The oversight by the provider was not robust. Care records and audits did not evidence that people's health and wellbeing was routinely monitored. Information about outcomes agreed with people were vague and may not have involved them at all.

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

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act. The service was working within the principles of the MCA. We saw capacity assessments had been completed and best interest decisions undertaken if people were unable to make their own choices and decisions. These were now carried out for people who were receiving one to one care, and we did not observe any unauthorised restrictions.

The deputy manager had made appropriate applications for DoLS authorisations. An effective system was in place to ensure these were kept up to date and any conditions were adhered to.