Ridgeway Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People received safe care. Risk assessments reflected people’s current needs and provided a guide for staff in providing safe care and support. Staff spoke confidently about each individual and how they preferred to be supported. They understood risks to people and how to report them. Arrangements were in place to ensure the safety of the premises and equipment. The environment was clean and free from potential hazards. There were good infection control processes in place. Where external professionals had made suggestions or recommendations to improve people’s care, the provider and registered manager responded positively. A professional said staff always followed their recommendations. They added, “We have no concerns about this service”. There were enough staff to ensure people’s needs and preferences were met. People’s requests for support were quickly responded to by staff. Staff were recruited safely and undertook a wide range of training to equip them with the knowledge needed to carry out their roles. Feedback from an external professional confirmed staff were positive and engaged when attending externally provided training. The registered manager and senior leadership team were visible, and approachable, and were well known by people and their relatives. The staff team felt supported by the registered manager. All staff had achieved a recognised qualification in care with the support of the provider. We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were requested to deprive a person of their liberty. People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood their duty to maintain people's safety and report any concerns. The registered manager and senior management team were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff supported people safely and without undue restrictions. People said they felt safe at the service and were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well. One person told us, “The staff are lovely people, I don’t have any problems” and, “I am very happy here”. Relatives shared this view. One said, “I have to say this place is fabulous, it’s such a relief”. Another told us, “The family feel at ease knowing our (relative) is in their care”. A visiting professional said they had not witnessed any poor practice at the service. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of safeguarding. Staff could clearly explain the process to follow should they have any concerns about people’s safety or well being. Staff told us if they suspected or saw any form of abuse they would report it immediately. Staff had received safeguarding training and had access to the provider’s safeguarding policies and procedures. People were supported by staff safely and often asked to confirm how they were feeling or if staff could do anything else for them.

Leaders understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. Staff understood their duty under safeguarding and confirmed they had received appropriate training. Staff felt people using the service were safe from the risk of abuse.

Staff approached and spoke to people in a kind and considerate way, and people appeared relaxed and comfortable around staff. People were assisted to move safely using appropriate equipment.

The provider information return (PIR) showed that the service had weekly care review telephone calls with their Primary care network Team Leader. Any queries and non-urgent care issues were discussed and triaged. Care plans were in place which staff understood and followed. The registered manager or senior staff assessed risks to ensure people were safe, and took action to mitigate any identified risks. Staff liaised with relevant external professionals to ensure changes in people’s needs, such as in their physical or mental health, were reviewed and supported appropriately. People could speak up if they had any concerns and these would be dealt with appropriately. The provider had clear policies, procedures and governance systems that had been embedded in the service to ensure good standards and drive improvement.

Risks to people were managed to ensure they were safe but without restricting their freedom, choice and control. Staff supported people with their individual needs. People told us they felt safe at the service and trusted the staff.

Staff kept people safe by regularly reviewing and updating people's risk assessments and their care plans as their needs changed. Care plans were designed to guide staff practice, to ensure people’s needs and preferences were met.

Through our observations, it was clear people were supported by staff who understood their individual risks and took the necessary action to keep them safe. For example, we observed staff helping people to mobilise, and observed staff assisting with moving a person using a hoist. We found this was carried out safely.

The provider information return (PIR) showed that the service had weekly care review telephone calls with their Primary care network Team Leader. Any queries and non-urgent care issues were discussed and triaged. Care plans were in place which staff understood and followed. The registered manager or senior staff assessed risks to ensure people were safe, and took action to mitigate any identified risks. Staff liaised with relevant external professionals to ensure changes in people’s needs, such as in their physical or mental health, were reviewed and supported. People could speak up if they had any concerns and these would be dealt with appropriately. The provider had clear policies, procedures and governance systems that had been embedded in the service to ensure good standards and drive improvement.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People’s needs and requests were met promptly by kind and considerate staff who knew them well. People received support from suitably qualified and experienced staff. Relatives and professionals confirmed the staff team were professional and knowledgeable.

Staff were happy in their roles and felt well supported. They received appropriate training and supervision. Overall, they felt staffing levels were sufficient to be able to deliver safe care and support. The provider used a dependency tool to determine staffing levels. The provider information return (PIR) stated, “We take advantage of training packages offered by the various departments we work with to ensure up to date best practice is achieved. This also increases confidence and autonomy for our staff. I have a peer support link with a fellow care home manager whereby we regularly meet for a coffee debrief, and offer mutual support, working through issues and processes to support our working practices and mental health”. Attendance at external training showed staff engaged positively

Staff were visible during the inspection. They spent time with people engaging in conversation as well as providing care and support. Staff were not rushed and had time to sit with people and engage with them in a meaningful way.

People were cared for by staff who had been safely recruited. Records confirmed staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal to help them develop within their role. The staff training matrix confirmed staff received training appropriate to their roles. The PIR stated, "The off duty was set up using a Royal College of Nursing template with Care homes RHHA guidelines, but is changed in response to the dependency of residents or to reflect special events such as meet and greet on open day, or an additional chef for summer barbeque. Study leave is rostered and paid at staff members usual rate."

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.