• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ryedale Care Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Victoria Road, Barking, Essex, IG11 8PE (020) 8514 2525

Provided and run by:
European Healthcare Group PLC

All Inspections

4 October 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 October 2016. We found four breaches of legal requirements at the last inspection on 8 September 2015. During this inspection significant improvements had been made. However, we found shortfalls in the current supervision program and made a recommendation. In addition, the premises and equipment were not always clean and well maintained. This was a breach of a legal requirement. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of the report.

Ryedale Care Centre provides care to a maximum of 70 older people with varied health conditions including people living with Dementia. On the day of our visit there were 19 people using the service.

At the time of our inspection there was a manager who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission as they had started working at the service two and half months prior to 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.

People told us they felt safe living at Ryedale. They were treated with dignity and respect by staff who understood their needs.

Staff had received safeguarding training and were able to explain the steps they would take to protect people from avoidable harm. Risks to people and the environment were assessed and steps taken to mitigate the risks were clear and known by staff in order to keep people safe.

Medicines were administered safely by staff that had been assessed as competent.

People thought there were enough staff to meet their needs. Call bells were answered promptly and kept within people’s reach.

Staff received appropriate training. They were able to demonstrate knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how they applied it in their daily work.

People and their relatives told us they were able to complain and felt their views were heard. They told us they were supported to maintain a balanced diet and were offered food that met their individual preferences. Activities were based on people’s hobbies and interests and helped reduce the risk of social isolation.

Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s physical social and emotional needs. They were reviewed regularly with input from people and their relatives

People and their relatives thought the service was well led by an approachable manager. There was a quality assurance system in place to ensure care was delivered safely. However, some records were not always accurate and did not always reflect care given. We have made a recommendation about record keeping.

8 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 September 2015.The service had met all legal requirements at their last inspection on 29 November 2013.

Ryedale Care Centre provides care to a maximum of 70 older people with varied health conditions including people living with dementia. On the day of our visit there were 58 people using the service.

At the time of our inspection there was a manager who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission as they had started working at the service six weeks prior to our 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.

The service was not always safe. Although we found that medicines were stored and handled safely, we saw shortfalls in the way medicine administration errors were managed. There had been some delays in ordering medicines prior to our inspection that had impacted negatively on people’s health. Furthermore, people were not cared for in a clean and safe environment as the premises presented trip hazards and needed refurbishment.

People were protected from avoidable harm at most times because appropriate guidance was followed. We had received several safeguarding notifications relating to unexplained bruising, and falls resulting in fractures mainly occurring at night or in the morning. We saw that aids such as sensor mats were in place to alert staff that people who were at risk of falls were up. However we recommend that the provider review staffing and skills mix at night to ensure that people are checked regularly.

Appropriate recruitment checks were completed before staff began to work at the service.

People did not always receive effective care. Care was not always based on best practice as staff did not always have the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. We recommend that appropriate action is taken to ensure that care staff understand how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies to their daily role. People were not always supported to have sufficient to eat, drink and maintain a balanced diet.

Consent to care and treatment was always sought in line with legislation and guidance. Where people’s liberty was being restricted related assessments including best interests decision-making approaches described in the code of practice to the MCA had been adhered to.

People received personalised care which met their needs. People’s diversity and religious preferences were respected.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted through most of the service with the exception of on one unit where we saw unshaven men, improper footwear and inappropriate continence management strategies that left the unit with an unpleasant odour.

There was inconsistent leadership on the units. Performance management and staff support needed to be improved in order to ensure that staff maintained people’s dignity and respect and followed appropriate procedures. The current policies sent to us electronically needed updating as they were last reviewed in August 2012. Furthermore staff were not always aware of the content or location of the policies and how they applied to their daily care practice.

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

29 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection.Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

People and their relatives told us they were well looked after and that their health and welfare needs were met. One person said "they are so kind to me here. They are lovely. I never want to be anywhere else." A relative told us "they are kind and caring, they look after her well." The care records we reviewed contained a range of assessments and care plans outlining how to support people using the service.The staff worked with other professionals, for example the tissue viability nurse and speech and language therapist to ensure that people's health needs were met.

We found that staff received the training they needed to provide a safe and appropriate service to people. They were aware of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding vulnerable adults. People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

17 April 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us that they liked living at Ryedale Court Nursing Home. We found that people's privacy and dignity were respected and their views were sought in relation to their care. Where people did not have the capacity to consent the provider had acted in accordance with appropriate guidance on consent.

We saw that people were assisted with their personal care and were being supported in accordance with their individual care plan. One person told us "they ask me and involve me in everything, from what I want to eat, to whether I want to go out." Another said "the staff are more attentive and caring. They always listen to me and ask me before they do anything."

A relative told us " we reviewed the care plan and updated it. I haven't got anything but praise for the way she is looked after."

Although people we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support they received from the staff, we found that care plans did not always accurately reflect people's needs leaving them at risk of receiving unsafe or inappropriate care and support.