Riverside

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 newly registered service. At our last assessment, under the previous provider registration we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 ensure that people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not consistently work in partnership with individuals to respond to changes in their needs.

While care plans were generally in place, they often lacked personalised detail to guide staff on how to support each individual. Where additional information from families was needed to personalise care, it was not always evident that this had been followed up. However, some people had detailed profiles that included information about how they wanted to be supported, as well as their likes and dislikes.

Staff generally knew people well and provided kind and caring interactions. Some staff worked in a particularly person-centred way, spending time talking with people and encouraging them to use the garden, while others were busy and task-focused.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. As a result, care was not always joined-up, flexible, or supportive of choice and continuity.

There had been issues with access to equipment needed to meet people’s diverse health and support needs. For example, people who accessed outdoor spaces for fresh air or to smoke were not always able to summon assistance when needed. However, a pendant call bell system had been ordered and was being implemented at the time of our inspection.

Staff told us they would support people to attend appointments or go to hospital when needed, but staff were not always available in an emergency to provide this support.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was readily available in the reception area and throughout the home. People, families, and staff told us that information was generally communicated effectively. The registered manager understood the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard, and the provider ensured resources were available to tailor communication approaches where needed.

People had care plans that included details about their communication needs, and we observed staff generally communicating with people effectively.

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 kept them informed about any changes made as a result.

People were supported to make decisions about their daily lives, including what they ate and where they spent their time, and staff respected their views. Meetings were held to gather feedback from people and families, and the provider used surveys to gain further insight into the service. The registered manager told us they operated an open-door policy, and people and families often dropped in to give feedback or ask questions. The registered manager and provider also told us that people had been involved in planning the redecoration programme.

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

People were supported to access appropriate health services, and the service had established good working relationships with external professionals. People told us they had ready access to the services they needed and had not experienced any barriers to access.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people most likely to experience inequality in outcomes and tailored care, support, and treatment in response.

People and families felt able to share their ideas and views and were confident that the registered manager and management team would take steps to support good outcomes. People were supported to access the community, and we observed several individuals enjoying a trip out for lunch. Activity workers supported people across the units to provide stimulation and engagement. However, it was not always evident that sufficient time was allocated to support people with higher support needs to engage in activities. At the time of our visit, there was also a shortage of drivers able to operate the home’s minibus, which reduced opportunities for trips out, particularly for those requiring adapted transport due to mobility needs.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, which meant they did not always have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

We noted that some people admitted from hospital recovered well from periods of illness. While there was some information recorded about people’s wishes, particularly as they approached the end of life, this often lacked detail. In some cases, there were notes indicating that proactive planning for future care was needed, but it was not evident that the necessary actions had been taken, or that these conversations had occurred with people or their families.