Riverside House

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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met.

This service scored 68 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care.

There was an activities programme in place to help meet people’s social needs. One person told us, “Some of the activities are excellent, especially if you’re feeling frivolous.”

People’s spiritual needs were also met, with visits from church representatives.

People’s families were able to visit at any time, which supported relationships and promoted wellbeing. We saw examples of people maintaining strong family connections, including one person who had recently gone abroad on a family holiday.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure continuity of care. We received feedback from staff, people and relatives who told us that changes in management had created uncertainty. People also told us that the use of agency staff, mainly at night had impacted consistency in care delivery and relationships with people, as temporary staff were less familiar with individual needs and preferences.

By the end of the assessment, a new manager was in post. She carried out unannounced night visits to monitor staff practices and ensure procedures were being followed, aiming to improve consistency in care delivery.

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

An effective system was not fully in place to make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support.

Changes in management and the culture this created had affected communication systems, which contributed to delays and inconsistencies in how feedback was acted upon.

A number of mechanisms were in place to support people to share their views, including “residents and relatives’ meetings,” satisfaction surveys, and a digital signing‑in system which allowed visitors to leave real‑time feedback when entering or exiting the home. However, people and relatives felt some issues were addressed, although progress was not always consistent. Staff feedback was also mixed. Some staff felt their views were listened to and acted upon, while others told us they did not feel confident that concerns would be taken seriously or handled confidentially.

By the end of the assessment, the new manager had begun addressing these issues. She had reviewed and streamlined the complaints log to improve clarity and oversight and introduced an open-door policy to encourage people using the service, their relatives, and staff to raise concerns and share feedback

The home was fully accessible, with adapted equipment. Staff were aware of people’s individual communication needs and used appropriate methods to support understanding. People could access services fairly and without discrimination. The home also maintained links with the wider community.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff considered individual preferences when planning engagement opportunities. Activities were adapted to suit people’s interests and abilities.

Staff asked people about their spiritual preferences and there were visits from church representatives. This ensured people could maintain their cultural and spiritual practices, promoting equality and inclusion.

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.

People were asked about their plans for the future, and some people chose not to discuss these matters, which staff respected.