The Ridings Care Home

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At our last inspection the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment. At this inspection we found improvements in how safeguarding concerns, incidents and accidents were investigated and analysed. There was evidence of lessons being learned from when things had gone wrong. These were shared with the wider staff team and used to help mitigate future risk. The home was clean, uncluttered and well maintained. People were supported to take their medicines safely. Recruitment and induction processes helped ensure staff were suitable and competent in their roles. People and their loved ones told us they felt staffing levels were appropriate. A couple of staff told us at busy times they felt more staff were needed in a particular area of the home, other staff said they felt staffing levels were adequate. These improvements meant the service was no longer in breach of regulations regarding people’s safe care and treatment.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. Some people did tell us they felt a little bored at times, more activity and stimulation would be beneficial. Aside from this people and their loves ones told us they felt their needs were met effectively. People liked the food and drink options available to them and were offered generous portions. People’s health was monitored using recognised and effective tools, to provide preventative care where possible. Staff knew when people may struggle to make decisions for themselves and when they might need some support. Staff at this inspection had a much better understanding of what it meant for people to be subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards when they did not have capacity to make decisions about their care.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. People and their loved ones spoke of the care team as kind, caring and respectful. They felt the staff team knew people’s individual needs well and responded quickly to urgent needs. Staff understood people’s capacity to choose, this helped them to promote people’s independence.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Peoples care was tailored to their individual needs and wishes. Extra support was provided to vulnerable people to make sure they could enjoy the same comforts as others. Adjustments were made to the home with equipment and changes to support everyone to access as much of their home as they could independently. People were supported with their communication needs by staff who knew them well and could help ensure they understood the options available to them day to day.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. During our assessment we found some minor issues, which systems had not identified, but overall the quality assurance systems in place were robust. Improvements had been made to systems to oversee the safety of people’s care, to ensure staff understood the importance of consent and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Systems had also improved to ensure staff provided care to people in a respectful and dignified way. They also ensured that people received person centred care and treatment. This meant the service was no longer in breach of any regulations.