Rivington Park Care Home

Updated 8 February 2022

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 provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 25th January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. We spoke with six staff, three residents and a visiting health professional.

Updated 8 February 2022

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of Rivington Park Care Home on 03 September 2018.

Rivington Park 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 care home accommodates up to 25 people. At the time of the visit there were 24 people who received support with personal care and nursing care.

The service was managed by a 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.

At the last inspection on 03 and 08 January 2018, we found four breaches of the regulations. This was because the provider had not sought authorisation to deprive people of their liberty to keep them safe. In addition, risks to receiving care had not been adequately managed and staff had not been adequately supported with supervision and ongoing training. The governance and quality assurance systems were not effective in identifying shortfalls to generate improvements to the quality of the service. Following our inspection, we issued the provider and the registered manager with a warning notice in relation to good governance. We asked them to be compliant with the regulation relating to good governance by February 2018. We also asked the provider to send us an action plan telling us what actions they intended to take to ensure compliance with the other regulations.

At this inspection we found that significant improvements had been made and the provider was meeting all regulations.

People who lived at the home and their relatives were happy with staffing levels. They told us staff provided them with support when they needed it. People who lived at the home and their relatives told us they felt safe.

Improvements had been made to the management of risks including risks associated with the use of bed rails and people experiencing frequent falls.

Records showed that staff had been recruited safely and the staff we spoke with understood how to protect people from abuse or the risk of abuse.

There had been significant improvements to staff training. Staff received an effective induction and appropriate training. People who lived at the service and their relatives felt that staff had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs.

People told us the staff who supported them were caring and respected their right to privacy and dignity. They told us staff encouraged them to be as independent as they could be and we saw evidence of this during the inspection.

People received appropriate support with nutrition and hydration and their healthcare needs were met. Referrals were made to community healthcare professionals where required to ensure that people received appropriate support.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems at the service supported this practice. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, the service had taken appropriate action in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This was an improvement from our last inspection. However, further improvements were required to ensure capacity assessments were decision specific.

People told us they received care that reflected their individual needs and preferences and we saw evidence of this. Staff told us they knew people well and gave examples of people’s routines.

There was a person-centred approach to how people were supported with activities. People were supported to take part in activities and events. They told us they were happy with the activities that were available at the home.

Staff communicated effectively with people. They supported people sensitively and did not rush them when providing care. People’s communication needs were identified, and appropriate support was provided.

The registered manager regularly sought feedback from people living at the home and their relatives about the support they received.

People living at the service and staff were happy with how the service was being managed. They found the registered manager approachable and supportive.

The registered manager and staff had worked collaboratively to make required improvements. New governance systems had been introduced since our last inspection. A variety of audits and checks were completed regularly by the registered manager and the compliance manager. We found that the audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were being maintained at the home.