Ringway Mews Care Home

Updated 18 October 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

On the first day the inspection was carried out by four inspectors, a pharmacy inspector and two Expert by Experiences. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Three inspectors returned on the second day.

Service and service type

Ringway Mews is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 24 people who used the service and 10 relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 32 members of staff including the registered manager, deputy manager, nurses, care workers, activities co-ordinators and the chef. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records. This included 19 people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at ten staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

Updated 18 October 2019

About the service

Ringway Mews is a care home providing personal and nursing care to 146 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 150 people and has five single level units, with each unit being able to support up to 30 people. All rooms are single occupancy with shared toilets and bathrooms.

Three units provide general nursing care, one supports people with dementia nursing needs and one is a residential dementia unit.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and relatives were positive about the care and support they received at Ringway Mews. They said the staff were kind and caring and treated them with respect. Staff knew people and their needs and explained how they maintained people’s privacy and independence.

Staff were also positive about working at Ringway Mews. They received the training and support required to carry out their roles. Staff also told us that training opportunities had improved since HC-One had started to manage the home in 2017. Staff were safely recruited.

People’s needs were assessed. Care plans and risk assessment provided guidance on how these identified needs were to be met. All plans were reviewed and current.

People received their medicines as prescribed. We have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines.

People were supported to maintain their health and nutrition. People’s weights were monitored, and fortified foods offered to those at risk of losing weight.

The service worked with medical professionals to meet people’s health needs. Two medical professionals said the staff followed all instructions they were given. However, the nursing home team said, that whilst there were no specific concerns, they felt the home relied on them a lot and instructions were not always followed.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. A hostess was employed on each unit to support people with their meals. An activity officer was employed on each unit. A regular plan of activities was in place. When people were nursed in bed 1:1 activities were arranged in people’s rooms instead of group activities.

The quality assurance system was robust, with action plans in place where issues were identified. Incidents and accidents were recorded and reviewed by the unit managers and the deputy and registered managers.

The home was visibly clean. Equipment was checked, maintained and serviced in line with regulations and guidelines.

An end of life care plan was available to record people’s advanced wishes for the end of their life. We found that most had not been completed. Unit managers told us many families did not want to discuss their relatives end of life.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s cultural needs were recorded and were being met. A range of culturally appropriate meals were available. People’s communication needs were recorded and provided clear guidance for the staff. Staff knew how people communicated their wishes and made decisions.

The service had a formal complaints procedure in place. Complaints had been responded to appropriately. People and relatives said they would speak directly to the staff and unit manager if they had any concerns.

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

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 18 October 2018) and there were two breaches of regulations. CQC issued two warning notices and met with the provider to follow up on the action we had told the provider to take.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

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