Ridgeway Residential Home

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.

Staff aimed to promote people's independence wherever possible. Relatives told us about the progress their loved ones had made. One relative said, “Currently (person) requires a lot of assistance from the care staff. (Person) tells us that all the staff are lovely and are doing their best to make them feel safe and well cared for”.

People were treated as individuals. Staff respected people's choices such as where people wanted to spend their time, what they wanted to eat and if they wanted to involve themselves in activities. Staff understood the importance of people making decisions for themselves and this was promoted.

One person had English as a second language. The registered manager and staff had worked hard to establish effective communication methods for this person to ensure they were fully included in day-to-day decisions. For example, an illustrated translation book, phrases printed for staff to use as prompts, and using technology to help with translation and communication.

People were supported with a range of activities that interested them, including arts and craft, quizzes, Karaoke, film afternoons, pampering and visits from external entertainers. People also had opportunities for pastoral care and community visits. One person was interested in gardening. Raised flower beds had been built to enable them to enjoy growing flowers and some vegetables. This kept the person active and engaged in a hobby they loved when living at home.

To promote health and mobility, the service held an exercise class twice a week facilitated by an external physiotherapist. We observed the session, which people enjoyed. One to one physiotherapy sessions were provided to help people with their rehabilitation.

We saw some people using their walking aids safely. Others required the assistance of staff who supported them competently without rushing.

People were supported and enabled to maintain contact with friends and family. There were no restrictions on visiting.

People received personalised care and support as staff met their needs in a positive, supportive, and encouraging way. People were treated as individuals and their views sought and listened to.

Some people were aware of how to raise concerns but said they had no cause to complain. Others were unsure due to their cognitive ability but had relatives to advocate for them. Relatives described very good communication with the registered manager and staff. They said they were informed of any changes and were always welcome to speak with staff should they have any concerns.

People were asked for their views on how the service was managed and knew how to make a complaint. People, relatives and staff said they felt listened to and were confident in the management of the service. Relatives said the service was well-run, and the registered manager and deputy manager were very approachable.

There was a positive culture within the staff team and staff tailored care and support to meet people’s needs. Meetings took place which provided people, relatives and staff with opportunities to raise concerns, share ideas and be involved in decisions relating to the home. The provider had quality assurance systems in place, to check the quality of service provided to people. Throughout our assessment they were open to feedback, taking swift action to drive improvement across the service.

People told us they had access to healthcare professionals when needed to ensure the best possible outcomes for their health.