Riversdale Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. 

This service scored 62 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not always discuss their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. In some care plans there was no evidence of people and/or their loved ones being involved. Two people we spoke with told us they had not seen their care plans. We fed this back to the provider who said they would review the care plans. Leaders told us people’s needs and wishes were assessed, and this information was used to develop individualised care plans for staff to follow. Some staff said they did not always have time to read through people’s care plans, however, they felt they knew people very well. One staff member said, “I know them very well, through the care plans, family members. One size does not fit all. A resident can sometimes change their minds about things, and it is important to promote choice.” Another staff member said, “Care plans are read when staff have the time.”  

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. One person we spoke with said they would like more support to move about, but their views had not been heard. We made the provider aware of this and asked them to speak to this person. People and relatives told us they had not been involved in care planning. When we asked whether they were involved in their loved one’s reviews, one relative told us, “No, not at all and I feel that this is due to Riversdale's poor communication.” We fed this back to the provider. We observed people had access to nutritious food which reflected their preferences. One person told us, “It would be rare to have a bad meal here.” However, one relative we spoke with said “The food could be better quality.” 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The staff knew people they were supporting very well. We observed people received the appropriate healthcare support, and the provider worked in partnership with various community-based health and social care professionals and agencies, including GP’s, district nurses and social workers. We saw recorded evidence of guidance external health care professionals had provided staff. The local authority told us people were supported to attend and benefit from health or social care appointments, and this was always documented accurately. Three people told us staff worked hard to look after them.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Some people we spoke with told us they would like to be supported more to maximise their independence. One person was sitting in an unsuitable chair and at risk of falling, however, the provider had not considered the possibility of re-assessing their needs for an alternative chair. We suggested to the provider that this should be explored. Other people were more positive, one person told us, “I have never been so happy and healthy as I am now living at Riversdale. I also get to keep my independence.”    

In the main the provider monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The registered manager was able to provide us with an example of a positive outcome achieved with a person. Most of the people and relatives we spoke with told us people’s changing care needs were closely monitored by the provider. The provider sent out monthly surveys to relatives, staff and other professionals to gain feedback to identify any improvements that need to be made. The provider told us they were committed to addressing the issues raised in the survey feedback and they have examples of a new system being put into place as a result. Some of the care plans we reviewed were comprehensive, however, we found some people’s care plans and risk assessments were not being updated accordingly. We fed this back to the registered manager who assured us this would be reviewed as soon as possible.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. One person told us, “Staff do ask for my opinion on what I would like.” All staff were able to tell us about the importance of gaining consent from the person and respecting their wishes. We observed staff asking for people’s consent prior to completing any tasks. Leaders told us when a person was unable to consent to their own care and treatment, they completed mental capacity assessments and made best interest decisions in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act, and evidencing the decision was in their best interests and the least restrictive option or outcome.  However, the provider was unable to assure us they had gained consent from people regarding the CCTV in operation in communal areas in the home.