Riverside Court

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 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.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff demonstrated the service’s philosophy of care when supporting people. One staff member said, “We work as a team to ensure the best outcomes for the residents and make sure the residents’ voices are heard and listened to.” Another told us, “We do have a good team spirit.”

The registered manager had an ‘Open Door’ policy in place, encouraging staff and people to approach them with queries or discuss concerns at any time. Team meetings allowed for open discussion and reflection on key issues. Staff were able to contribute their ideas and any concerns during these meetings. Various options to provide feedback were given to people and their relatives, including regular in-person meetings with the registered manager. We saw evidence of the registered manager having proactively tried to rectify concerns within the staff culture, to reinforce expectations of staff, and to ensure people using the service were not negatively affected.

Most staff told us they believed the senior staff and registered manager had the appropriate skills for their role. One said, “I feel my [registered manager] does a remarkable job. [They’re] very knowledgeable, is willing to work on the floor when needed, takes huge pride in [their] work and is very professional.” However, staff did not have as much confidence in the provider. Staff were not comfortable approaching the provider for support in the same way they were the registered manager.

The provider understood the impact of staff not always feeling well-treated, and they took on board our feedback in respect of having constructive interactions with staff. The provider took steps to undertake further work to understand staff sentiment and work to improve staff’s experience of working within the service.

Most staff told us they felt supported and listened to, and they trusted the registered manager to do the right thing. One told us the registered manager is “fair and approachable. You can talk with [them] about anything. [They] are open to challenge.” Another said, [“Registered manager] is very approachable and nice. Very good listener.” However, although the service tried to foster a positive culture for people to speak up, not all staff felt they would be supported or have their voice heard if they did so. One staff member told us they, “Don’t get listened to.” Another said the provider should be “best avoided with concerns.”

The service provided various avenues by which staff were encouraged to speak up, informally or formally. The Whistleblowing Policy in place explained the obligations on staff to report abuse, assured staff of their rights and protection, and identified actions to be taken by the service. Staff meetings allowed for staff to voice any concerns over people’s care or other issues. The registered manager had an ‘Open Door’ policy in place whereby staff could go and discuss anything worrying them at any time.

Staff told us they were treated fairly at work and not discriminated against. We observed diversity in the staff employed at the service. Equality, diversity and inclusion was considered within the service’s recruitment process for staff. All employees and applicants were asked to complete an (optional) equality monitoring form to enable the service to ensure the Equal Opportunities Policy had been fully and fairly implemented.

The service valued diversity in their workforce and worked towards an inclusive culture. There was an Equal Opportunities Policy in place which stated a commitment to achieving a work environment that provides equality or opportunity and freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race, religion and belief, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, or gender reassignment.

The service had digital care records for people. The registered manager explained this allowed better oversight of information such as people’s care needs, key monitoring (such as how often people are re-positioned, and people’s progress with regards to any pressure injuries), safety incidents, risk assessment reviews required for people, and staff interactions with people. However, we found much of the responsibility for key tasks fell to the registered manager. There was no contingency plan in place (should leaders be unavailable for a significant period) to ensure the service would continue to run safely and effectively. There were instances where staff had not followed a policy or other instruction given, and these had not been identified during audit processes.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk. Internal processes and audits undertaken had failed to identify the concerns we highlighted during the assessment in relation to medicines management, environmental risks, and visitation. The service had implemented a restriction on mealtime access for visitors to people, but it had not followed the appropriate process to do so. The service was not aware this action constituted a blanket restriction. The provider responded well to our feedback and began to make immediate improvements.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals, such as a GP, District Nurse, and chiropodist, as well as support from Social Workers, the Community Mental Health Team, and other key practitioners, as needed. External services were procured to provide key activities to people to encourage sensory stimulation, socialisation, and to aid people’s general wellbeing.

Staff supported partners during visits to the service and recorded key information, as appropriate. One staff member commented on the “really good relationship” the service had with visiting professionals. The registered manager worked closely with other agencies to ensure people’s needs were met and to broaden the knowledge and experience of both the service and its staff.

Visiting partners all provided positive feedback about the service. One healthcare professional said, “There is a caring culture, and they know their residents.” The service had worked collaboratively with partners to seek advice and make any changes needed to improve the support provided for people.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, enabling services to achieve better outcomes for people. The service shared key information and learning with partners, and it collaborated for improvement.

Not all staff felt they had the opportunity to learn and develop in their role, or felt their ideas for improvement were listened to. There was not a strong sense of trust between staff and the provider. Learning from safety events was not always clear, with not all staff feeling they were told key information following incidents. However, the registered manager encouraged reflection and collective problem-solving, utilising advice from external partners to drive improvements and good practice.

The service had made significant changes since our last assessment. Although many improvements had been implemented, further work was required to ensure compliance with all regulations. The provider has remained in breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, and good governance. We found that continued review and improvement of governance processes was required.