Riverside Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed people’s needs prior to them moving to the service to ensure it was the right service for them, staff were able to meet their needs and there was sufficient staffing in place. People’s assessments considered their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs. Staff understood people’s current needs. People and relatives told us they were involved in formulating care plans and were kept informed of any changes. This meant people’s care was tailored to their individual needs, promoting better outcomes and wellbeing.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The provider was using nationally recognised tools, for example the Waterlow score, for assessing people’s risk of pressure damage and the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) for monitoring people’s weight. However, when risks were identified, appropriate measures to mitigate those risks were not consistently implemented. We identified concerns regarding the monitoring of hydration for 2 people. Although the care plan clearly stated that support was required in this area, staff were not consistently recording relevant information in their daily care notes. Staff reported the handheld device used to log care interactions and tasks had not been updated, resulting in a lack of prompts and guidance. This oversight placed the person at risk of not receiving appropriate support. The registered manager confirmed that updates to the handheld devices were underway.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. People’s relatives told us the staff team always kept them informed about any healthcare appointments. Staff had access to people’s care and support plans to understand people’s needs and deliver their care. There were weekly ward rounds from the local GP the service was also supported by district nurses and other health professionals.

Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were not consistently supported to manage their health and wellbeing, which limited their independence, choice, and control. Systems were not robust enough to ensure staff identified, escalated, and managed health risks effectively. Care plans did not always reflect people’s health needs accurately and sometimes contained conflicting information, increasing the risk of staff errors and potential harm to service users.

Where care plans detailed health tasks which required monitoring, staff were not consistently completing these tasks explaining they were not prompted to do so on their handheld devices. People were not repositioned in line with their care plan to mitigate the risk of skin breakdown meaning there was a risk of deterioration in people’s health conditions.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. People’s care was not always clearly monitored. Records to show what people had eaten, drank, when they were repositioned, and care interventions were not always completed clearly or accurately by staff. Some records indicated gaps in people’s care interventions. These gaps had not been investigated which meant the provider was not always able to assess whether people’s needs had been met.

Overall, the provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider had suitable systems in place to work within the principles of the MCA. They checked whether people had appointed someone else to make decisions on their behalf, for example by making a power of attorney. This helped to ensure relatives or friends with lawful authority to make decisions for people were appropriately involved.

Staff understood the importance of supporting people to make their own decisions and obtaining consent from people before care was delivered. People and their relatives confirmed staff asked for consent before providing care. A person commented, “They ask me for my consent, and I get the care I want.”