Ridgway Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The registered manager understood their role to record accidents and incidents, and they knew how to reduce the risk of these happening again. There were systems in place to learn lessons from events, including an accident and incident reporting policy and procedure, and staff knew how to record relevant events. These were analysed to look at lessons which could be learnt. Accidents and incidents were reported to partners where this was required. The registered manager told us they attended regular meetings with managers of other services to discuss best practice and learn from each other.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider had a continuity plan in place and staff understood the importance of ensuring safe transitions for people when this was necessary. External professionals told us staff provided them with the information required so transitions were as seamless as possible. One member of staff told us, “We’ll get everyone involved, like the next of kin, the GP and other medical people.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe living at the service and staff treated them with respect. One person told us, “I feel very safe here because all the staff are well trained and they are lovely.” A relative commented, “I think my mother is safe in this care home.”

The registered manager understood their legal responsibility to safeguard people, staff completed training for safeguarding and whistleblowing, and there was a safeguarding policy and procedure in place which was created in line with current legislation. Staff told us they knew how to recognise possible signs of abuse and how to report these internally and externally. One member of staff told us, “If someone is hurting somebody by hitting them, pinching them or any negative abuse, I’d go straight to the manager or I’d go to higher or to the police.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. The provider understood their responsibility in relation to safeguarding people’s rights and what would constitute a restrictive practice. Applications for DoLS authorisations were submitted to the local authority, and these had considered the least restrictive ways and involved relevant partners in the decision-making process.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and their relatives told us staff managed risks in relation to their care appropriately. They told us staff involved them in the decision-making process by balancing risks and people’s wishes to remain independent. A relative told us, “I think they're very aware of safety. So, like if my mum is walking, there's always someone behind her, and they're aware if she does have a fall.”

Staff understood risks in relation to people’s care. Staff told us they had sufficient time to read people’s risk assessments and that there was enough information in care records for them to follow.

People’s care records included information on how to manage specific risks, for example, in relation to developing pressure sores, bruising and the risk of falls. Where healthcare professionals provided instructions, care records included relevant information.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Whilst regular checks were in place to ensure the premises were safe, including mobility equipment, fire safety, water and environmental checks, we found 2 first aid boxes contained expired items. The provider immediately ordered replacements but there was a risk that there could be a delay to potential first aid treatment when these were required in an emergency. The provider’s monitoring systems had not identified this, however, the nominated individual told us that they would update their audits and that they would check all of the provider’s other care homes’ first aid boxes to ensure these were safe to use.

People and their relatives told us the environment was safe. One person told us, “They keep me safe. Even the windows are safe with the safety catches.” One relative told us, “The environment is safe. There's no trip hazards and I think they're very on it.”

Where the provider had identified environmental hazards, there were plans in place to address this and we saw work was ongoing to address the areas, such as the path in the garden which was undergoing repairs.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People and their relatives told us there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs during the day and at nighttime. They told us staff had sufficient time to get to know them and that the staff team was consistent. One person told us, “At night, they come every 2 hours to check on me. That’s what I want. They come very quickly.” A relative commented, “I think it's very consistent actually; a lot of the staff you see during the week are there at weekends as well. I don't know how they work it, but it seems to be very consistent at the weekend.”

Staff told us there were always enough of them on duty and that they had enough time to safely meet people’s needs. One member of staff told us, “We always have enough staff. If we are one staff short, then everyone helps.”

We observed there were sufficient staff throughout the assessment, they did not appear to be rushed and staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs. Staff had completed training to undertake their role and had received regular supervisions. One member of staff told us in relation to supervisions, “They (management) ask you where you want to go, if you want to achieve anything, and basically checking up on you. They talk about your attendance.”

Staff were recruited safely to the service. This included requesting and receiving references from previous employers, right-to-work documentation, checking professional registrations and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. DBS checks are carried out to confirm whether prospective new staff had a criminal record or were barred from working with people at the time.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People and their relatives told us the environment was regularly cleaned and that staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately. The environment was clean throughout our visit. One person told us, “It’s very clean. I’ve had no reason to complain.” A relative commented, “It’s clean and efficiently run. It suits [person].”

Staff told us they had sufficient PPE to undertake their tasks. We observed staff following effective infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures throughout our site visit. The provider had IPC policies and procedures in place and undertook regular IPC checks of the environment and equipment. The registered manager understood their responsibilities to report infection outbreaks to the relevant health authorities. One member of staff told us, “There’s loads of [PPE] everywhere in the cupboards.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People and their relatives told us medicines were managed safely. One person told us, “I have various pills and they come before I wash and dress. They’re very good.” A relative commented, “They make sure they give it to her. They always explain to her what they're giving her and always make sure she takes it.”

Medicines were stored and disposed of securely. Where medicines required additional monitoring, this was completed. Medicines were administered by trained staff who had completed medication competency assessments. Staff followed the provider’s medicines management policy and received regular refresher training. Medicine administration records were completed electronically and staff were informed by the system when a medicine was overdue. Regular audits of medicines management were carried out by the management team, and actions were recorded. For example, where the provider had identified some protocols for ‘as and when required’ medicines were missing, it was clearly recorded that action had been taken to address this.