Archived: Ridgway Court

Updated 6 October 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the 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 17 August 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience who had experience of older people’s health and care services. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the completed PIR and other information that we held about the service and the service provider. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We also reviewed comments that we had received from three health and social care professionals who agreed to us using their comments in this report. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection.

We spoke with six people who lived at Ridgway Court and two relatives. We also spoke with two care assistants, a senior care assistant, the deputy manager, the registered manager and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

We observed care and support being provided in the lounge and dining areas. We spent time observing the lunchtime experience people had and also observed part of the medicines round that was being completed.

We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. These included care records and medicine administration record (MAR) sheets for four people and other records relating to the management of the home. These included staff training, support and employment records, quality assurance reports, policies and procedures, menus and accident and incident reports.

Ridgway Court was last inspected on 10 December 2013 and there were no concerns.

Updated 6 October 2015

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 17 August 2015.

Ridgway Court is a 16 bedded residential care home that provides care and support to older people who may be living with frailty associated with old age and or dementia. It is part of a not for profit organisation and is run by a Board of Trustees. There is a chairman, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and a general manager in addition to the registered manager. At the time of the inspection there were 16 people living at the home, four of whom we were informed had a formal diagnosis of dementia.

During our inspection the registered manager was present. 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 said that they were happy with the medical care and attention they received and we found that in the main people’s health and care needs were managed effectively. However, the monitoring of one person’s specific health care needs was not always robust and did not ensure that that appropriate action could be taken if needed. The registered manager took immediate action when we fed back to her our findings.

There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately. Prescribed creams had not always been signed to say they had been applied. The registered manager took immediate action to address this during our inspection.

Assessments and care plans were detailed and informative and could be used to monitor that people were receiving effective treatment.

People told us that there were enough staff on duty to support people at the times they wanted or needed. We observed that on the day of our inspection there were sufficient staff on duty. People said that they would speak to staff if they were worried or unhappy about anything. Staff had received safeguarding training and were aware of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and actions taken to reduce reoccurrence where possible. Staff were able to describe how they supported people to maintain their independence whilst maintaining their freedom and safety. Equipment was available in sufficient quantities and used where needed to ensure that people were moved safely and staff were able to describe safe moving and handling techniques

People said that the food at the home was good. Staff assisted people when required and offered encouragement and support.

Staff were sufficiently skilled and experienced to care and support people to have a good quality of life. A training programme was in place that included courses that were relevant to the needs of people who lived at Ridgway Court. Staff received support to understand their roles and responsibilities through supervision and an annual appraisal.

Ridgway Court was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards protect the rights of people by ensuring if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty these have been authorised by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. People’s capacity to make decisions had been assumed by staff unless there was a professional assessment to show otherwise. This was in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice which guided staff to ensure practice and decisions were made in people’s best interests.

People said that they were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew what people could do for themselves and areas where support was needed. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. Staff understood the importance of respecting people’s rights. People were routinely listened to and their comments acted upon. Staff were seen spending time with people on an informal, relaxed basis and not just when they were supporting people with tasks.

People said that the home took appropriate action in response to changes in people’s needs. Care plans were in place that provided detailed information for staff on how to deliver people’s care. Care records were person-centred, meaning the needs and preferences of people or those acting on their behalf were central to their care and support plans.

People said that they were happy with the choice of activities on offer. An activity programme was in place that included external entertainers and a weekly outing.

People said that the home was well-led and that management was good. The registered manager was supported by a deputy manager. A variety of tools were used to obtain and act on feedback from people. These included questionnaires and residents meetings. A range of quality assurance audits were completed to help ensure quality standards were maintained and legislation complied with.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.