Riverside Court

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 inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. We found the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the way people’s medicines were managed. However, staff clearly understood their safeguarding responsibilities. People told us they felt safe living at Riverside Court. Staff were recruited safely. The service proactively engaged with key external services to ensure people’s health and other needs were monitored. We received positive feedback from visiting professionals about Riverside Court.

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 inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. We found the service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to people’s access to visitors, and the governance at the service. However, the service collaborated well with partners to ensure better outcomes for people. The registered manager had an ‘Open Door’ policy to enable anyone to raise concerns or discuss anything whenever they needed to. The service valued diversity in their workforce and worked towards an inclusive culture.