You are here

Ryfields Village Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We have removed an inspection report for Ryfields Village from 29 November 2017. The removal of the report is not related to the provider or the quality of this service. We found an issue with some of the information gathered by an individual who supported our inspection. We will reinspect this service as soon as possible and publish a new inspection report.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 11 August 2016

This inspection was announced and took place on the 16 and 18 May 2016.

This was the first inspection of Ryfields Village following a change of service provider. The new provider (Warrington Community Living) had only been responsible for the service for seven months having taken it over from a previous provider who had relinquished the contract.

Ryfields Village was developed in partnership with Warrington Borough Council, Arena Housing Association and Extracare Charitable Trust. The Village is a housing scheme that is situated in Orford, Warrington. It was purpose built in 2002 and is fully accessible to people with mobility needs. There are 243 properties in total (226 apartments and 17 bungalows).

The complex is equipped with a range of facilities for people to access such as health suite; hairdressing salon; restaurant; jacuzzi and steam room; licensed bar and coffee bar; craft and hobby room; village hall; shop; IT suite and laundry. A large accessible car park is located at the front of the building.

Warrington Community Living (the provider) is responsible for the provision of the regulated activity ‘personal care’ to approximately 49 people with a broad spectrum of needs.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager at Ryfields Village. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During our inspection of Ryfields Village we were supported by the registered manager, newly appointed service manager (who was in the process of registering with the CQC), an acting service manager and an organisational development manager. The Chief Executive Officer also attended during day two of our inspection to answer questions and provide the inspection team with updated information on strategic, operational and human resource issues. All of the senior management team engaged positively in the inspection process and were helpful and supportive.

People told us that staff were generally polite and attentive in the way they undertook their duties. People were keen to emphasise the benefits of receiving individualised support at Ryfields Village. People also highlighted how the service had helped them to feel secure, maintain their wellbeing, preferred lifestyle and identity within a community setting.

During this inspection we found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take as the back of the full version of the report.

We found gaps in the agency’s quality assurance system. Furthermore, we found that people were not adequately protected from the risks associated with unsafe medicines management.

Satisfactory recruitment and selection procedures were in place which met the requirements of the current regulations and offered protection for people receiving care and support from the provider.

Staff understood the importance of promoting healthcare and good nutritional intake and hydration within the context of person-centred care and respecting people’s rights to choose what they eat and drink.

Systems had been developed to ensure complaints were listened to and acted upon and to safeguard vulnerable people from abuse. Although incidents of abuse had been referred to the local authority’s safeguarding team, the provider had failed to notify CQC via the statutory notification process. We have written to the provider regarding their failure to notify the CQC.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 11 August 2016

The service was not always safe.

People were not adequately protected from the risks associated with unsafe medicines management.

Policies and procedures were in place to inform staff about safeguarding adults and whistle blowing. Staff had received training in regard to safeguarding vulnerable adults and were aware of the procedures to follow if abuse was suspected.

Recruitment procedures provided appropriate safeguards for people using the service and helped to ensure people were being cared for by staff that were suitable to work with vulnerable people.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 August 2016

The service was not always effective.

Although staff had access to training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), they lacked knowledge of this protective legislation and how to work within the framework of the MCA.

Training and associated records were in need of review to verify and ensure that staff were appropriately inducted and trained in all key areas relevant to their roles.

Staff were aware of the need to promote people using the service to have a healthy lifestyle and to maintain hydration and good nutritional intake.

Systems were also in place to liaise with GPs and to involve other health and social care professionals when necessary.



Updated 11 August 2016

The service was caring.

People using the service and / or their representatives were generally complimentary of the service and confirmed people were treated with dignity and respect.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 August 2016

The service was not always responsive.

Although the provider was in the process of introducing person centred approaches to care planning, the majority of information viewed within personal files, including risk assessments had been produced by the previous provider, contained basic information and was in need of review.

People reported that they did not always receive continuity of care as they received support from different staff.

Systems were in place to record feedback received from service users or their representatives and to respond to concerns and complaints.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 August 2016

The service was not always well led.

CQC had not been sent statutory notifications in respect of safeguarding incidents.

Auditing systems were in need of development and review to ensure key aspects of the service were effectively monitored and developed.

The service had a registered manager who provided leadership and direction.