• Care Home
  • Care home

Ridgway Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

48-50 Ridgway Road, Farnham, Surrey, GU9 8NW (01252) 715921

Provided and run by:
Abbeyfield Wey Valley Society Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

1 November 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 1 November 2017 and was unannounced.

Ridgway Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Ridgeway Court is a home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 16 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post who was present during the inspection. 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.

At our last inspection in August 2015 we found support was not always provided in a consistent way for a person with a specific medical condition. We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question ‘Effective’ to at least good. At this inspection we found the action plan had been implemented and improvements had been made and people’s health care needs were regularly monitored.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff demonstrated a good knowledge of these. Risk assessments were in place and control measures implemented to ensure people received safe care. When accident and incidents occurred these were reported and action taken to minimise the risk of them happening again. The provider had developed a contingency plan to ensure people would continue to receive their care in the event of an emergency. Regular health and safety and infection control audits were completed and people lived in a clean and homely environment. Recruitment checks were completed prior to staff starting work to ensure they were of suitable character.

People had access to healthcare professionals and were supported to attend appointments where required. Safe medicines practices were in place and people received their medicines in line with prescription guidelines. People were enabled to be in control of their own medicines where appropriate.

Sufficient, skilled staff were available and people did not have to wait for their care to be provided. Staff had time to spend with people socially and call bells were responded to in a timely manner. Staff received an induction when starting at the service which included a period of shadowing more experienced staff members. Staff competency in carrying out their role was regularly assessed. On-going training was provided to staff which included training relating to people’s specific needs. Staff told us they felt supported although we found that staff supervisions were not completed in line with the provider’s policy. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

People were enabled to exercise choice and control in their day to day lives and their legal rights were protected. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and relevant procedures were followed. People were provided with a choice of nutritious meals and their individual preferences were known to staff. Where people required support to eat this was provided in a respectful manner.

There was a calm and homely atmosphere and people told us that staff treated them with kindness. We observed staff supporting people in a caring and respectful manner. People’s dignity and privacy was respected by staff and their independence was promoted. Visitors were made to feel welcome and there were no restrictions on the times relatives and friends could visit.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving in to the service to ensure they could be met. Detailed care plans were developed with people which gave clear guidance to staff. Care plans were regularly reviewed and any changes to people’s care was communicated to staff. There was a range of activities available and people were involved in planning the activity programme. Regular outings to places of interest were planned and supported by staff, volunteers and trustees.

There was a strong leadership presence in the service. Trustees visited the service often and were involved in the quality monitoring process. The registered manager, deputy manager and chief executive spent time speaking to people and staff and clearly knew the well. A positive culture had been developed and staff were aware of the vision and core values of the organisation. People, relatives and staff were given the opportunity to be involved in the development of the service through regular meetings and surveys. There was a complaints policy in place and ay concerns or suggestions were acted upon by the management team. Records were securely stored and managed.

This was the first inspection of the service since a change in legal entity.