Ridge House Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People told us they felt safe and we observed positive interactions between staff and people during the assessment. There were systems to learn from accidents and incidents. Risk was managed by the service to keep people safe and the environment was clean and appropriately maintained. There were sufficient staff to support people and recruitment was safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they were well cared for. The service had a safety focussed approach to care. People and their relatives told us they would be comfortable to raise concerns or complaints.

Staff understood reporting processes for incidents and accidents to ensure they were appropriately escalated. The manager had systems and process in place to monitor incidents and accidents to ensure safety incidents were responded to appropriately. There was a continual service improvement plan in place.

There were systems in place to ensure learning was undertaken from incident and accidents to reduce the chance of recurrence. Whilst no complaints had been received at the service, there were polices and processes in place to investigate and respond if required.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People and their relatives spoke of the service feeling safe and were positive about the staff in the service that supported them. One person we spoke with told us, “Staff are always so helpful and kind.”

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to identifying and escalating safeguarding concerns. One told us, “First I would inform a senior person and then the manager and then they if the manager he is here he will do the rest but the information should be in the staff handbook or policies if we need to do more.”

Our observations during the assessment were positive. The interactions between people and staff at the service were relaxed, friendly and genuine. It was clear there was a good relationship between staff and people living at the service.

There were policies and process in place for staff to follow should they identify a safeguarding concern. Safeguarding information had been displayed for people in the entrance foyer with contact details for external agencies such as the local authority. There were processes to ensure deprivation of liberty applications had been made where required.

During the assessment no concerns were raised by people and their relatives about involvement in risk management and maintaining independence. Relatives felt staff managed risk well.

The manager stated care plans were completed with people and relatives where appropriate. They told us that changes to assessed care needs were discussed with people and their relatives. Relatives we spoke with told us this happened.

Our observations during the assessment were positive. Staff were observed supporting people safely but in the least restrictive way possible. Where safe to do, people were openly encouraged by staff by staff to be independent with mobilising and moving around the service.

There were care plans in place that recorded risk management and mitigation measures. These were available for staff to understand people’s known risks. There were systems to manage known care and treatment risks with appropriate healthcare professionals.

People were cared for in an environment that met their needs. No concerns were raised by people in relation their living environment.

The manager told us they had received support from the local quality assurance team from the local authority in relation to environmental safety and had worked with them on improvements in the service. We saw documentation to support this.

During our assessment we observed the environment to be clean, tidy and well maintained. Equipment in the service used to support people was observed being used currently.

There were systems in place to ensure the facilities, equipment and technology used within the service were well maintained, serviced and fit for purpose. Regular testing and servicing of the fire alarms and associated safety equipment was undertaken.

People and their relatives told us there was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People and their relatives felt staff were well trained and that safe and effective care was delivered.

Staff told us they felt they received sufficient training to undertake their roles and said they felt confident in delivering care. The manager told us that supervision and appraisal was currently being implemented. Whilst this was not yet fully in place, staff told us they felt well supported.

We observed there were appropriate staffing numbers deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff appeared well trained and competent when performing their roles.

There were processes in place to ensure safe and effective recruitment was undertaken that ensured all relevant pre-employment checks were completed. The manager ensured that staff training was monitored to ensure it was current and valid.

People were cared for in a clean and well maintained environment.

Staff understood the need for the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and when to use it. They commented on how and when they changed their PPE to reduce the risk of cross contamination.

We observed that people were cared for in a clean and well maintained environment with no unpleasant odours. Staff were observed using PPE appropriately. There were PPE stations around the service for staff to use.

There were relevant policies and process in place for infection prevention and control. Auditing was undertaken within the service to ensure the environment was clean and well maintained.

People received their medicines in a safe and caring way, and as prescribed for them.

Staff told us they were getting used to the new electronic system for recording medicines. They told us they felt well supported by the manager and from the GP surgery and the pharmacy. They told us they had training and competency checks to make sure they gave medicines safely. They could describe how medicines errors or incidents were recorded and followed-up.

Medicines records showed that they were given as prescribed for people, and personalised protocols were in place for medicines prescribed ‘when required’. Medicines were stored securely, however there were some improvements needed to the monitoring of the temperature range for fridge medicines. Medicines audits took place which helped to identify areas for improvement. Medicines errors or incidents were reported and investigated. There were no assessments in place to show that individual risks had been taken into account for people taking medicines for blood thinning, or people using flammable external preparations. These were put in place following the assessment.