Rivermere Retirement and Care Home

Updated 6 February 2021

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.

This was a targeted inspection to check on a specific concerns we had about staffing levels, risk management, infection control, nutrition and the overall management of the service.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by two inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type:

Rivermere Residential and Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with CQC. 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 here

We sought and received feedback from the local authority safeguarding team and commissioning team. We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. 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 ten members of staff including the registered manager, deputy manager, regional manager, three team leaders, one senior care staff, two care staff and the customer experience manager.

We reviewed a range of records. This included four people’s risks assessments, medicines records, staff training, staff rotas and infection control policy.

The Expert by Experience telephoned two people who lived in the service and eight relatives to gain feedback about their experiences of using the service.

Updated 6 February 2021

Rivermere retirement and care home is jointly managed by WT UK Opco 2 ltd and Willowbrook healthcare (which is part of the Brand Avery and is known operationally as Avery).

The service is required to have a registered manager as part of the conditions of their registration. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. At the time of the inspection WT UK OPCO 2 ltd did not have a manager in post who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Willowbrook healthcare had a registered manager in post. In terms of the day to day management of the service there was a registered manager in post and there was no impact on the people using the service. WT UK OPCO ltd took steps, following the inspection, to resolve this issue.

The service was registered to provide accommodation with care to older people and those living with dementia. The registered provider was also registered to provider the regulated activities treatment of disease, disorder and injury and diagnostics and screening. However, these regulated activities were unused as there was no nursing care provided at Rivermere. The registered provider agreed to cancel these regulated activities following the inspection.

This inspection was carried out on 18 October 2017. At the time of our inspection there were 49 people using the service. The service was structured into two units. The assisted living unit was located across two floors for older people and the memory care unit was located on the top floor for those who were living with dementia. There were 13 people living on the memory care floor. We previously inspected this service on in February 2017 when we rated the service requires improvement and made some recommendations about how the service could improve further. At this inspection we found that action had been taken in respect of all the recommendations we made.

People told us they felt safe using the service and had their needs met. Staff knew what action they needed to take to keep people safe. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and minimised to eliminate avoidable harm. One potential safeguarding matter had been reported through the complaints procedure rather than using the safeguarding policy. This was resolved during the inspection. We made a recommendation about this for future practice. The premises and equipment had been well maintained and there were effective systems in place to respond to emergencies. The service was kept clean and hygienic to reduce the risk of infection. People were supported to manage their medicines safely. We made a recommendation about the system for disposing of topical medicines (creams and lotions).

There were enough staff working in the service to meet people’s needs. There were staff vacancies in the service that were being covered by agency staff. The manager had an ongoing recruitment plan to fill the vacancies. We made a recommendation about this. Staff recruitment procedures were robust and ensured that staff were safe and suitable to work in the service. Staff received training that ensured they were skilled and competent to meet people’s needs. There were opportunities for staff to develop their skills through qualifications. Staff were supported through supervision meetings and team meetings.

People had enough to eat and drink to meet their needs and they were enabled to make choices about their meals. They had care plans that ensured their health needs were met. People were supported to access relevant healthcare professionals and advice given was followed by staff.

People were asked for their consent to care before it was provided. Where people lacked capacity to make their own decisions the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. People’s right to liberty was upheld and staff understood their responsibilities to ensure people’s human rights were upheld. The service had an effective policy for ensuring care provided did not discriminate in any way.

People received flexible and personalised care. They had been involved in developing and reviewing their care plans. People told us that their care was based around their preferred routines. Consideration had been given to the specific needs of people living with dementia when developing care plans and when planning the environment.

People told us they knew how to raise concerns about their care and they felt confident they would be listened to. There were a number of ways that people were supported to have their say about the service. The manager had responded appropriately to concerns, complaints and comments.

The manager and the registered provider had effective systems for monitoring the quality and safety of the service. They understood the risks and challenges the service faced and had a clear strategy to ensure continuous improvement of the service.