Rivermead

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

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment 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.

The provider had a series of quality assurance systems in place that included weekly and monthly audits to ensure there was a cycle of continuous improvement. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and they felt supported by the registered manager. The service was well-managed, and staff understood the shared values of the organisation. There was a supportive culture, where staff felt listened to and were able to express their views. The provider and the staff team demonstrated a commitment to ensuring quality, diversity and inclusion.

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.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion. Staff were motivated and proud of the service. Staff said there was good team working and everyone was focussed on ensuring people using the service were happy and fulfilled. Staff told us there were regular meetings, supervisions and effective ongoing communication where ideas, future plans and feedback was shared with them. One told us, “We are included in how the home is run and asked for our opinions.”

People, relatives and staff all felt listened to by the management team and the provider. Everyone felt their views were valued and respected. The registered manager had a clear vision about the type of care people living with dementia needed and they shared their vision with the staff team through meetings, 1-1 supervisions and in routine communication with the staff.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. Everyone spoke highly of the registered manager and how much work they put into the smooth running of the service. A staff member said, “[Name of registered manager] is very approachable. They are always available.” Another member of staff commented, “The manager runs a tight ship and is very supportive of the staff. They are the glue that holds us all together.”

The provider was committed to continually motivating the staff team and recognising their dedication to their role. A well-established staff team and clear communication meant that all staff understood their roles and effectively contributed to an open and supportive team ethos. Staff felt valued and listened to and they told us that if there were any issues, they were quickly sorted out.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Everyone we spoke with felt able to openly speak up about anything that concerned them. One member of staff said, “The managers are very open and honest and encourage us to speak up if we have any concerns.” Staff members knew the relevant policies and procedures which directed their work including safeguarding and whistleblowing.

Where feedback was sought, this was analysed for patterns or trends and enabled lessons to be learned and action taken to prevent recurrences. There was training available, to enable staff to understand their duty of care to the people they cared for. Records confirmed that staff were given information about how concerns could be raised, including escalating these to external agencies if necessary.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. For example, staff members from diverse backgrounds felt valued and respected because the provider had implemented strategies that promoted cultural diversity and understanding. Staff were supported to observe their religious holidays and the provider embraced various cultural perspectives and traditions.

The supervision platform allowed staff to share their concerns with managers. These were dealt with as soon as they are highlighted, and staff were aware they had an avenue to raise their concerns. Staff completed surveys so they could give their views and opinions. We saw from the minutes of the staff meetings they were fully informed of what was happening in the service and any incidents were shared for lessons learnt. Staff completed training about Equality, Diversity & Inclusion.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. Staff described supervision and appraisal as regular and supportive, with staff praising the high level of support they received from their line managers. One staff member told us, “The manager goes over and above to help us and support us. They genuinely care about their staff.” All the staff we spoke with said they had great job satisfaction and were supported to develop their skills, giving them lead roles and empowering them to drive improvements and new initiatives.

The provider had successfully embedded a robust auditing system. This included regular internal audits in areas such as accidents and incidents, risk management plans, staff training, staff supervision, reviews of people's goals and recruitment records. We saw there were actions plans in place to address any areas that needed further improvements, and we saw actions were taken swiftly. Best practice was shared throughout the team, identifying what had worked well for each person, or what had not worked well.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. People experienced positive outcomes because staff understood their needs and worked collaboratively with other organisations. For example, we saw that staff worked collaboratively with dementia professionals and received training from health professionals around specific areas of the people’s care needs to ensure they could support them safely.

The management and staff team had built good working relationships with health professionals and supported people to see them if they needed this support.

Feedback from healthcare professionals indicated the staff and leaders at the service actively engaged with external health services to promote the wellbeing of the people using the service.

Processes were in place to ensure effective communication and partnership working between the service and health and social care professionals. This meant people’s care provision was joined up and services worked well together.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. A staff member told us, “We discuss accidents or incidents in our team meetings, and we talk about what we can do about them. and what we can learn from them.”

There were processes in place to ensure that learning happened when things went wrong, and best practice guidance was sought and shared. There was a focus and importance placed on ensuring staff had the skills to do their jobs well with opportunities for continued learning and development linked to the needs of people. Supervisions and team meetings were used to openly discuss training needs and further training would be accessed if staff felt they needed it, which in turn better supported safe and effective practice.