Ryefield Court

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. The service was previously registered under a different legal entity. This is the first assessment for service since it was registered with this provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a learning culture. The provider had procedures for dealing with incidents, accidents and complaints. The management team investigated these and developed plans for improvements. These were shared with the staff. When needed, changes were made to the service, planned care, risk assessments or staff training. The staff confirmed managers discussed adverse events with them so they could learn together. Relatives explained they were well informed when things went wrong, and they were confident improvements were made because of these.

The provider had systems to help ensure safe transitions between services. They carried out thorough assessments of people’s needs, consulting with the person, their representatives and other professionals involved in their care. The provider worked closely with others to support people when they accessed different services. They supplied summaries of key information about people’s communication and healthcare needs to different healthcare professionals. This helped to ensure everyone involved in their care had the information they needed.

The provider had procedures to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe. Their comments included, “I certainly do feel safe; I am well looked after”, “It is very safe here and there is always someone looking out for you all the time” and “This place has given us peace of mind, when I leave after a visit I am never concerned about my relative.” Staff undertook safeguarding training. They were able to tell us what they would do if they suspected someone was being abused or at risk of abuse. The provider worked with the local authority and other organisations to help investigate allegations of abuse and to keep people safe.

The provider had requested legal authorisations where restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for people who did not have the capacity to consent to these. Decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests and for their safety.

The provider assessed and planned for risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. People using the service and their relatives thought these were well managed. One relative explained, “I am happy and do not worry about [person] being here.’’ Risk management plans were clear, regularly reviewed and updated. The staff were trained to understand about safe care, including how to support people to move, when caring for their skin and supporting them to eat and drink safely. Staff kept records which showed people’s wellbeing and risks were monitored and that people received appropriate care. For example, regular repositioning people to help prevent skin damage. Risk assessments and plans included guidance from external professionals when appropriate. We saw staff caring for people in a safe way. They were gentle, followed appropriate techniques and gave people the information they needed to stay safe.

The environment was safe and well-maintained. People had their own bedrooms with en-suite facilities. Bedrooms were large enough for people to entertain visitors with comfortable seating. There were several different communal areas on each floor. These included a bistro, cinema room, a hairdressing/beauty salon, a library and a private dining room where people could entertain guests and hold private parties. The home was nicely decorated with good quality furnishings. There was a programme of redecoration to ensure the environment remained in good condition. Corridors were wide and equipped with handrails. The building was light, well-ventilated and clean. People were able to bring their own belongings to decorate their rooms. There was a large and accessible garden with areas of seating. The provider ensured people had the equipment they needed to stay safe. This included equipment to help them move, sensors to alert staff if people fell and adjustable beds. The provider aimed to support people to remain independent whenever possible. They provided individual support to enable this, for example personalised signage and equipment in their rooms if needed. People using the service and their relatives told us they liked the environment.

The provider employed enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. People using the service and their relatives told us there were enough staff and their needs were met in a timely way. Their comments included, “I am aware the carers are around at night, and I can call them if I need’’, “There are regular staff and they know [person] well’’ and “Even when there are bank (temporary) staff on duty, this doesn’t alter the positive care provided to [person].” Staff told us they felt staffing levels were good, and they did not have to rush care. The registered manager told us they had good staff retention, and this was confirmed by staff and people using the service. They used a dependency tool to assess people’s staffing needs. People were able to make choices about the gender of their care staff.

The provider’s systems helped make sure staff were suitable when recruited. They carried out pre-employment checks and provided an induction, assessed staff competencies at work and provided a range of training.

The provider had systems to prevent and control infection. The staff undertook training to understand these. There were regular checks and audits of cleanliness and hygiene. People using the service and their relatives told us the environment was clean, and they were happy with the laundry service. Their comments included, “The cleaning is good, and they keep it looking lovely”, “Staff wear gloves and aprons”, “The whole place is well kept and spotlessly clean” and “It always looks really clean, and it doesn’t smell.”

Medicines were not always managed in line national guidance. Systems for disposing of medicines were not always robustly followed. The provider’s process for ordering medicines was not always effective. Areas where medicines were kept were not always clutter free.

Care plans generally were kept up to date, with information for staff on how to support people with their regular medicines. However, information for “when required” (PRN) medicines was not always detailed enough. The service did not always record guidance for supporting people with covert medicines.

We discussed these concerns with the registered manager. They took action to address these and shared evidence of the improvements they made.

The service had an effective process for ensuring that people were supported to receive their prescribed medicines on time and appropriately.

Staff told us they were well supported to care for people by dedicated clinical teams which included a regular doctor, matron and palliative care team. Staff and leaders spoke highly of this support.

Staff received medicine related training which supported them to safely carry out their role.

People were able to manage their own medicines if they wanted and were assessed as safe to do this.

People told us they were happy with medicines support. Their comments included, “They are very strict with the medicines” and “They are careful with medication.” A relative commented, “They keep me well informed about any changes in medication for [person].”