Riverside Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 62 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We received positive feedback from people and their relatives about the approach staff adopted to their work. One relative told us, “Everyone is very nice and kind there. I am really happy with it.” Another said, “The staff are kind. I have never had any issues with any of the staff. They are very polite friendly, and they can’t do enough for my [relative].”

During our inspection we observed some positive interactions and saw staff treated people with kindness and respected people’s privacy and dignity. People’s privacy was respected, and staff were aware of the need to ensure their personal information was protected.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care and support was delivered in a non-discriminatory way and the rights of people with a protected characteristic were respected. Protected characteristics are a set of nine characteristics that are protected by law to prevent discrimination. For example, discrimination based on age, disability, race, religion or belief and sexuality.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported by staff to maintain aspects of their independence. For example, people had access to appropriate equipment, such as walking frames to help maximise their mobility.

The home employed an activities coordinator and people said there were activities throughout the day. One person told us how the staff were interested to hear about their interest in literature, and another person told us how staff encouraged them to take part in activities. Relatives told us, “The activities lady is absolutely brilliant, she gets them involved in making things. They have a go at skittles and gets them paying cards. It’s really lovely.” And “They have a lot of activities, they had a support dog in, bingo, singers and physical exercises. They do nails and hair, [relative] joins in when they can.”

People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family who could visit the home throughout the day.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. People's immediate needs were not always met. Some examples of kind and compassionate care were observed; however, this level of care was not consistently applied across the home.

People’s dining experience was not as positive as it should have been, which impacted dignity and choice. Staff had not used ‘show plates’ to support people in choosing meals at the point of service. Some staff were observed to be distracted while assisting individuals to eat, starting support and then leaving to complete other tasks without explanation. One person dropped their chicken meal and waited around ten minutes before being given a replacement meal of pork without being asked what they wanted. This did not respect their preferences or dietary needs. Another person’s behaviour visibly upset others in the dining room, and staff did not intervene to reduce distress.We found that call bells were in the rooms but were not turned on or accessible. As a result, some residents who could have safely used the call bells were unable to do so, limiting their ability to ask for help when needed.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Most staff told us they felt supported by colleagues and management and described good communication across the team. Staff reported that the provider was supportive of their wellbeing and accommodated various working patterns.