Riverside Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The atmosphere in the home was calm and positive and reflected a supportive staff culture. Staff meetings took place regularly to provide updates, identify any potential gaps in quality from the staff’s perspective, and ensure the service continued to meet people’s needs. The leadership engaged regularly with the staff team. The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of the duty of candour and the importance of learning from previous shortfalls.

The management team acted on the findings from the last assessment and made significant improvements. These changes needed to be further embedded and sustained to ensure a continuous approach to improving care.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Following the previous assessment, members of the leadership team had completed additional training on the electronic care planning system. This improved their confidence and competence in using the system effectively. The leadership team continued to support staff and monitored progress closely. As a result, care records were updated in a more timely and accurate way, giving managers better oversight of people’s care and support. The provider continued to review systems and processes to make sure improvements were maintained and further developed to support high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The registered manager told us they had an open-door policy to allow people, relatives, staff, and professionals to raise concerns or any feedback. Most staff we spoke with told us they felt comfortable approaching the provider and management team with issues and concerns about people’s care and had confidence these would be listened to and addressed. However, several staff said they felt the manager’s close relationship with some staff discouraged them from raising concerns with the manager.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy and complaints management system in place, and staff were informed of this as part of their induction.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Leaders had a focus on diversity and inclusion. Leaders fostered a culture of acceptance and embracing different cultural beliefs with the staff team and people using the service. Protected characteristics were respected and plans put in place to ensure there was a zero tolerance to discrimination. Staff had received training and knew how to recognise discrimination within the workforce.

Leaders provided flexible working agreements to staff to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues and had put reasonable adjustments in place for some staff to help them carry out their role. Managersengaged with staff via appropriate forums such as individual supervisions, various staff meeting types and staff surveys, to ensure their voices were heard.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Overall, the provider had strengthened governance arrangements, with clearer responsibilities, defined roles and improved systems of accountability. Despite these improvements, we identified new concerns relating to medicines management. Although medicines had previously been managed safely, at this assessment we found they were not always received, stored, administered or disposed of in a safe manner. The registered manager acknowledged these issues and confirmed that immediate action would be taken.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The home had effective relationships with health and social care professionals and services. People were supported to attend appointments or were visited in the home appropriately to meet their physical or emotional health needs. The service had established good working partnerships links with the local GP surgery with face-to-face ward rounds. There were also regular visits to or from dentists, opticians, chiropodists, dieticians and others.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The management team were proactive in using information from audits, complaints, incidents and safeguarding alerts to improve the service. The managers worked with staff to understand how things went wrong and involved them in finding solutions. However, all of these systems and processes needed be embedded and sustained, to ensure there was a continuous approach to improving care.