Archived: Ridgewood House Home for the Elderly

About the service: Ridgewood House Home for the Elderly is registered for 21 beds and provides personal care and accommodation for older people. On the day of our visit 20 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service met the characteristics of ‘Good’. People were supported by staff who understood their role in protecting them from harm. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed to try to prevent future incidents. Risks were assessed and managed and people received support to take their medicines in a safe way. Recruitment checks determined the suitability of new staff to protect people that used the service. Infection control procedures were in place and followed to minimise the risk of people acquiring an infection.

People enjoyed the meals provided and they were consulted about the meals available, to ensure they met their preferences and dietary needs. Drinks were available to people throughout the day to ensure they remained hydrated. When people were unable to make specific decisions regarding their care, assessments were completed and meetings held with professionals and people that were important to the person; to ensure decisions were made in their best interests. This demonstrated that people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and were supported in the least restrictive way possible. People and their representatives were involved in their care to enable them to receive support in their preferred way. People had access to healthcare services and received coordinated support, to ensure their preferences and needs were met.

Opportunities to take part in social activities were available to enhance people’s well-being. People were supported to maintain their cultural and faith needs and were treated with consideration and respect by the staff team and their dignity and privacy was respected. Information was available in an accessible format to enhance people’s understanding. People maintained relationships with their family and friends and were encouraged to give their views about the service. This included raising any concerns they had.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvement, this included; the ongoing refurbishment, maintenance and safety of the home, staff development and support and ensuring that people’s preferences and needs were monitored and met.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 29/07/2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Ridgewood House Care Home provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 21 older adults, including some people who may be living with dementia. At the time of our visit, there were 20 people living at the service. There was a registered manager at this service. 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.

People felt safe in the home, which was kept clean and well maintained. The provider’s staffing arrangements helped to make sure that people were safe and received the care they needed at the time they needed it.

People were protected from harm and abuse. Potential risks to people’s safety were taken into account in the planning and delivery of their care and people’s medicines were being safely managed.

People and relatives were happy with the care provided. Staff understood and followed people’s care plans to support people to maintain and improve their health in consultation with relevant external health professionals when required.

People received food and drinks they enjoyed, which met their dietary needs and choices. Staff understood people’s dietary requirements and provided people with the support they needed to eat and drink.

Staff followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to obtain people’s consent for their care. People were supported as far as possible to make their own decisions about their care and treatment and helped to do so when needed. This was done in a way that was lawful and which met their rights and best interests.

Staff received an appropriate introduction to their role before they provided care. People received care from staff who were provided with the necessary training and supported to enable them to perform their role and responsibilities for this.

Staff were consistently kind and caring and established positive relationships with people and their families. Staff valued people, treated them with respect and promoted their rights, choice and independence.

Staff understood family and friends were important to people and ensured they were appropriately involved in people’s care. People were informed and supported to access independent advocacy services if they needed someone to speak up about their care on their behalf.

People’s care was personalised, inclusive and timely. Staff acted promptly when people needed assistance and they understood and communicated with people in a way that was meaningful to them.

People received support and equipment to help them to stay independent. They were often supported to participate and engage in home life and sometimes within their local community. Improvements were planned to increase leisure and recreational opportunities for people.

People and their relatives were appropriately informed and comfortable to raise concerns or to make a complaint if they needed to. The views of people receiving care and their relatives were regularly sought by the provider and used to inform and improve people’s care experience.

The service was well managed and led and people, relatives and staff were confident in this. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities for people’s care and they were informed and supported to perform this.

The provider’s governance arrangements helped to inform and ensure continuous service improvement and accountability for people’s care.

We spoke with four people who used the service, two relatives, the provider, the registered manager, three care staff and the housekeeper. We looked at four people's care records and four staff files.

We found that the provider had systems in place to gain the consent to care and treatment of people who used the service. Where people did not have full mental capacity to consent, care was provided in their best interests.

We found that staff had an understanding of the needs of people who used the service. We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a safe way, which met people's individual care needs. People we spoke with were positive about the care they received. One person told us, "I'm so happy here, we have fun and the staff are lovely."

We found that people were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment and were protected from the risk of infection.

We found the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

All staff had received training including caring for people with dementia so that they had the knowledge to support the people safely in the way that they chose.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in making decisions about their care. The care plans were signed by people, or their relatives, to show their involvement and agreement.

The provider was regularly seeking the views of residents, relatives and staff members on different aspects of care within the home through meetings and surveys.

The home had an established team and regular numbers of staff on duty to ensure people's needs were met.

The provider visited the home regularly. There were systems for monitoring the quality of the service. Some of these were formal systems which were recorded. Other systems were informal where it was not possible to establish the extent or frequency of the checks made.