Ridge House Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Staff were positive about the service management and told us they felt part of a team that provided good care. They said they felt they were able to raise concerns and ideas with the manager where needed. Whilst the manager had governance arrangements in place, the provider had failed in their role to implement a governance system to oversee the management and health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. The assessment identified the service had failed to send some notifications. The failure to notify CQC of statutory notifications in line with requirements was a breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration Regulations) 2009. We assessed 4 quality statements in the ‘Well-Led’ key question and found areas of concern. The score for this areas has been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was rated Good. Although the assessment of these areas indicated areas of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains Good.

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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff feedback we received about the service manager was positive. Staff told us the service manager was approachable. One staff member we spoke with told us, “They [manager] are doing their best to make our team comfortable and ensuring we are doing our duties the best. We are working together as a team with the managers and if there are any mistakes they are always open to us with positive criticism and tell us where we can improve and we are ready to improve and it is all about unity.”

Service leaders had created clear lines of responsibility and staff understood their roles. The service manager was visible for staff. Whilst the assessment team were told by the manager that the provider visited the service weekly, there was no supporting evidence of the impact this had on their relationship with staff or people living at the service.

Staff told us that the service leadership was approachable and they would happily raise concerns or suggestions. One told us, “We have staff meetings monthly and we had one last month. They are good because we can talk to all the staff together about the residents and what we can do to improve, and they talk about things that happen and what we can improve and we all learn and we all know we need to lean more.”

There were whistleblowing policies in place and staff meetings were held for staff at all levels to seek feedback and communicate key messages. There were policies in place relating to the Duty of Candour detailing the providers responsibilities in the event something goes wrong.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The service manager told us they had been working with the quality improvement team from the local authority to improve the governance of the service. They told us this experience had been very useful and they continued to receive support and were working on a continuous service improvement plan.

There were governance arrangements in place for the manager appropriate to the service. These were still in the process of being fully embedded. Whilst the service manager had a governance system being embedded, the provider had failed to implement a governance system to oversee the management and health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. This is a key role of the provider in having oversight into the quality of the service being provided to allow them to take action as needed. Whilst the provider attended the service weekly, there was no records of any actions taken during these visits. The provider failed to send requested evidence when asked by CQC. During the assessment, we identified the service had failed to send statutory notifications to CQC as required by law. We use this information to monitor the service and ensure they respond appropriately to keep people safe and the absence of reported data may not ensure effective regulation can take place.

People received care from a service that worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals to achieve good outcomes for them.

The service manager told us they worked with a number of other professionals and that they received the required level of support and guidance where required. They spoke positively about working relationships and how this had a benefit on people living at Ridge House.

The feedback we received from healthcare professions was varied. We were told the service has improved since the new manager has been in post and that the service was welcoming and the team was friendly. Some concerns were raised about the managers understanding of governance. Another concern raised was around the lack of engagement of the provider in supporting staff at Ridge House to improve their knowledge and experience.

There were processes in place to work in partnership with other healthcare professionals to escalate concerns or risk to people as required.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.