Background to this inspection
Updated
29 April 2021
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.
This inspection took place on 7 April 2021 and was announced.
Updated
29 April 2021
About the service
368 The Ridge is a residential care home providing personal care for up to six people. At the time of inspection, six people were living at the service. People were living with learning disabilities and autism.
The building was situated over two floors. Bedrooms were spacious with ensuite facilities and there were various communal areas for people to relax in. There was also a large accessible garden that we saw people using throughout the inspection.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The outcomes for people reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible to gain new skills and become more independent.
Although regular quality audits were completed to manage oversight of the service, we found improvements were needed to the recording of mental capacity documentation. We also discussed alternative ways of gathering feedback from people to ensure it was effective. For both these concerns, we considered impact on people to be low. The interim manager acknowledged these were areas for improvement and began planning for how to rectify this.
Although people could not all tell us they felt safe, we observed them to be relaxed and happy around staff that knew them and risks to their wellbeing. Relatives were confident that staff kept people safe, one telling us, “I think they’re as safe as they can be, whilst still having complete freedom.”
There were enough staff to meet all of people’s needs and they were recruited safely. We observed medicines being given safely to people by trained and knowledgeable staff.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff had all received training to meet people’s specific needs. During induction, they got to know people and their needs well. One relative said, “Staff are warm and friendly - they know my relative very well, know exactly what's going on and how to manage their support needs.” People’s nutritional and health needs were consistently met with involvement from a variety of health and social care professionals.
Everyone we spoke to was consistent in their views that staff were kind, caring and supportive. One relative described the service as, “Like a big family.” We observed people to be happy to see staff and engaging in a positive way. People’s independence was considered important by all staff and their privacy and dignity was also promoted.
Activities were tailor-made to people’s preferences and interests. People were encouraged to go out and form relationships with members of the community. Staff knew people’s communication needs well and we observed them using a variety of tools, such as sign language and objects of reference, to gain their views.
Although we found some areas of improvement, feedback about the manager and interim manager was positive from staff, professionals and relatives. A team working culture was promoted and staff were encouraged to be open, honest and supportive of one another. The interim manager said, "When things go wrong, we use it as a learning tool. We take issues to manager's meetings, ask for ideas and talk about where we can improve."
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good. (published September 2016)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.