Archived: Ravendale Hall

Updated 26 May 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the registered provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 26 April 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector. Before the inspection, the registered provider was asked to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Prior to the inspection we looked at notifications sent in to us by the registered provider, which gave us information about how incidents and accidents were managed at the service. We contacted the local authority safeguarding and contract monitoring teams to ask them for their views on the service. The contracts team provided us with information from their recent monitoring visit.

During the inspection we spoke with four people who used the service and three people who were visiting. We spoke with five staff including the acting manager, general manager, care workers and the activities coordinator. Following the inspection we contacted a number of local health and social care professionals to request feedback.

We spent time observing the interactions between the people who used the service and staff in the communal areas and over mealtimes. The care records for five people who used the service were looked at. We also looked at other important documentation relating to these people including medication administration records (MARs), monitoring charts for food, fluid and weights, risk assessments, activity logs and accident and incident records.

We looked at a selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service. These included five staff recruitment files, training records, staff rotas, minutes of meetings, quality assurance audits, complaints management, cleaning schedules and maintenance of equipment records. We also undertook a tour of the building.

Updated 26 May 2016

Ravendale Hall is a care home situated in the small village of East Ravendale on the outskirts of Grimsby in North East Lincolnshire. The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide residential care and accommodation for up to 34 people who may have dementia related conditions or a physical disability. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 13 people to live at Ravendale Hall; two of these people were accessing the service for respite.

Ravendale Hall is a large converted listed building in its own grounds. The service is provided over two floors and offers communal lounge areas, library, bathroom and toilet facilities, bedrooms, dining area, kitchen, conservatory, passenger lift, staff areas, outside garden space and on-site parking facilities.

At the time of our inspection our records showed that the service had a registered manager in post. We found out during the inspection the registered manager had left their post in February 2016 and their application to cancel their registration had been submitted and was being processed by the CQC. A new manager had been appointed in February 2016 and was awaiting the outcome of their application to become the new registered manager. 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.

This inspection took place on 26 April 2016 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 16 June 2015 where we found the registered provider was in breach of the legal requirements relating to safe recruitment practices and the management of medicines. At this inspection the registered provider had made improvements and had met the necessary requirements.

The service understood how to keep people safe and there were policies and procedures to guide staff in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff understood how to report potential abuse and had received training to reinforce their understanding.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to safely support people. Staff received supervision, observations of practice and annual appraisals to support their practice. We found people received their medicines as prescribed and staff were appropriately trained with the skills to carry out their role effectively.

We found staff had been recruited safely and appropriate checks had been completed prior to them working with vulnerable people. Staff had good knowledge and understanding of the needs of the people they were supporting and people told us staff were considerate and kind.

Staff had received training in legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Mental Health Act 1983. They were aware of the need to gain consent when delivering care and support and what to do if people lacked capacity to agree to it. When people were assessed by staff as not having the capacity to make their own decisions, meetings were held with relevant others to discuss options and make decisions in the person’s best interest. The acting manager had submitted a number of applications to ensure people were not unlawfully restricted.

People who used the service were provided with a varied diet and spoke highly of the food they received. Staff monitored people’s food and fluid intake and made referrals to healthcare professionals when required. People who lived at the service were supported to access health care and attend appointments when needed to ensure their health and wellbeing was maintained.

The service offered a range of activities and people were encouraged to participate. The registered provider had a complaints procedure which people could use to raise any concerns or issues they had. People who used the service had personalised care plans in place which identified potential risks, likes and dislikes and outcomes. Family and friends were welcome to visit and people living at the service were encouraged to maintain family contact.

People told us the leadership at the service was approachable and supportive and people were encouraged to give their views and opinions of the service. The registered provider promoted an open and transparent organisation and staff were supported through regular supervision, team meetings and annual appraisals. The service had an effective auditing system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.