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 67 (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. One relative said, “I was involved in [relatives] care planning. I am happy with it and would say something if I wasn’t.”

Overall, the provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider was using nationally recognised tools to assess and monitor risk, such as the Waterlow score for pressure‑damage risk and the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) for monitoring weight. However, records of care provided were not always completed consistently, meaning there was not clear evidence support had been delivered in line with people’s needs. For example, some records for repositioning were not recorded, restricting the ability of managers to have clear oversight. These were recording concerns and we found no evidence of harm to people. The registered manager had already identified gaps in care records and agreed to prioritise updating of records and ensure accurate recording of care provided. Staff knew people well and were able to explain how they minimised risks.

People received food and drinks that met their assessed needs. There were options available, and individuals could choose alternatives if they preferred. However, feedback about the food was mixed. One relative said, “I am happy [with the service] except for the meals. They should cook food from fresh not ready made.” While another relative said, “The food looks lovely and they have even offered me lunch!”

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.

Staff and leaders worked with external professionals and support services to meet people’s assessed needs, for example doctors, district nurses, dieticians, speech and language therapists and palliative care specialists. A visiting professional told us they experienced difficulty navigating the care plans and locating key information. We raised this with a member of the leadership team, who informed us the provider is carrying out further work to ensure risk assessments and care plans are integrated within a single system to improve accessibility.

The provider and leaders promoted a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) approach when supporting people, and care and support was developed and provided in partnership with people, relevant external professionals and clinicians. Meetings were held with relevant health and social care professionals to ensure care was tailored to meet people’s immediate or changing needs and to ensure all avenues for people’s wellbeing were considered. One visiting professional said, “[Staff member] has a fantastic knowledge of the people they work with.”

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. Care plans considered people’s individual needs, circumstances, ongoing care arrangements and expected outcomes.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Following the last assessment the provider had made improvements to systems and processes to support people to manage their health and wellbeing. The provider has introduced more effective systems to ensure staff could identify, escalate, and manage health risks effectively. Care plans were more detailed and person‑centred. They provided comprehensive information about each person’s assessed needs, preferences, and desired outcomes. This enabled staff to deliver care in a consistent and individualised way. Improvements in the quality and accuracy of care planning supported better health outcomes, as risks were more clearly identified, monitoring requirements were clearly set out, and staff were better equipped to respond to any changes in people’s health and wellbeing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Oversight had improved, but inconsistencies in record‑keeping limited its effectiveness. For example, staff were not always completing records consistently, meaning it was not always clear whether support had been provided as required. The monitoring systems therefore need further embedding and consistent use to ensure any gaps are quickly identified and addressed.

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.

The provider and registered manager ensured people’s views and wishes were considered when their care was planned and people confirmed this. People understood their rights around consent and staff supported them to understand these. People received information about their care and treatment in a way they could understand and had appropriate support and time to make decisions. People's capacity and ability to consent was considered.

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.