Ruislip Nursing Home

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 12 December 2024 (assessment visit 25 October 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   GGood Good

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

   People received safe care and treatment. Risks to their safety and wellbeing were assessed and planned for. The provider worked with people using the service, staff and others to learn when things went wrong and to improve the service for them.

   The environment and equipment were safe to use and well-maintained. Staff had training to understand about safe care and using equipment. There were systems for ensuring infection prevention and control and these were operated effectively.

   The provider worked in partnership with external professionals to help people access other services and get the safe care they needed.

   There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. There were robust systems for recruiting and selecting staff; as well as training them and making sure they were competent and knowledgeable.

   People’s medicines were managed in a safe way.

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

   People’s needs and choices had been assessed and planned for. The staff worked with other professionals to help make sure people’s healthcare needs were met, and they received good outcomes. Staff had training to understand about best practice. People’s care and outcomes were monitored, and the provider took appropriate action to make sure people stayed safe and well. People had consented to their care and treatment where they were able. When people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions, the provider had assessed this and decisions were made in their best interests involving their representatives.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

   People were cared for by kind, considerate and compassionate staff. They had a good relationship with the staff who knew them well and understood their needs. Staff used people’s preferred names and pronouns. People’s individual needs, including cultural and religious needs were respected and met. The staff created care plans which included personalised information. These were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect their choices and needs. People were able to make choices, and the staff communicated clearly and appropriately for each person. The staff responded to people’s immediate needs. Staff felt supported and the provider had systems in place to support staff wellbeing and enable them to develop their skills and careers.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

   People received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their choices. People were supported to access other community and healthcare services, and the staff worked with others to provide continuity of care. There were effective processes for listening and involving people as well as sharing information. The provider responded to complaints and learnt from these. People’s human rights were respected, and they were treated with equity and respect.

5. Well-led

   GGood Good

   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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection 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.

   There was a positive culture at the service, where people living there and staff felt supported and happy. There were 2 registered managers who knew the service well and worked closely with staff to provide care. There were suitable governance systems including a range of polices and procedures which reflected best practice and legislation. There were effective systems for monitoring and improving quality as well as learning and reflecting on feedback from stakeholders.