Ringway Mews 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 59 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We could not be assured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Person centred care was difficult to deliver due to staff being too busy and too task focused. Most of the interactions we observed over 5 different days were not person centred. We observed people who required more support at mealtimes not receiving support and we observed people sat around with very little interaction from staff except when staff reacted to incidents to keep people safe.

People’s care plans were not always up to date, and they did not fully reflect people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs. The manager told us they were not person centred and more work was required to improve care plans. There appeared to be a lack of urgency from the provider, and a lack of resources committed to achieve the task within an acceptable time frame.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people.

The provider had acknowledged better quality training was needed, and this was being rolled out to support staff to have a better understanding of the health and social care needs of the residents they supported. More in depth training was required on dementia for example.

External professionals had reported improvements with the way staff engaged with them and worked with them to meet people’s needs since the new manager started.

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

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard by identifying, recording, flagging, sharing and meeting the information and communication needs of people. People had communication care plans and recorded what their needs were and provided guidance for staff to follow to help ensure people’s communication needs were met.

A complaints policy was in place, and relatives could attend meetings and received an annual survey. A monthly newsletter was also emailed out to all families and hard copies were available within the home.

The complaints records shared were not easy to follow and we received some poor feedback about how complaints and concerns were managed. We received negative feedback from 3 different families about their experience when there had been concerns about poor care. One family member told us they were not happy as they not been informed about an incident until the following day and a different family member raised concerns they had not been informed until 6 weeks after an incident had occurred. They were frustrated they had missed a phone call at the time of the incident, but staff had not called them back.

Other relatives told us they felt able to engage with the unit managers and the home manager to raise concerns if they needed to. They told us, “[Relative’s] room is just down from the office so I would pop in and speak to whoever is there if I needed to” and “I raised concerns in the past, before the new company took over, they did listen, but nothing changed. The new ones are more responsive.”

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People who lacked capacity to manage oral care did not receive the support and treatment they needed when they needed it. They were disadvantaged by conditions such as dementia, and we did not see any additional support provided. The approach being used was not in line with best practice.

The physical environment was accessible and had adaptations to support people’s needs. We received no concerns from people or their relatives about accessibility. We did observe the environments could be made more dementia friendly.

Staff had appropriate access to support for emergencies that occurred out of hours.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

There were concerns throughout the assessment that people with dementia were at risk of receiving poorer outcomes.

Residents and families did not report any concerns related to the discrimination and inequality.

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.

Staff were trained in end-of-life care and people, and their families were given opportunities to plan for this if they chose to. People were given the opportunity to express their wishes about their future care and support including end-of-life care.