Riverside Care Complex

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. We observed care and support that was caring, friendly, responsive, and supportive. Staff spoke about providing person centred care based on what was important to the person. One staff member said, “I know what people enjoy through talking to people and there is a section in everyone’s care plan around family, interests and hobbies.” A family member said staff involved them. They said, “We go through what is best for [person] with the staff here. They are very good with [person].”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies. We saw this included access to G.P, district nurses, chiropodists, dentist and speech and language therapy.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff understood people’s communication methods and styles. The provider was following the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Information was available in a variety of formats and where English was not someone’s first language, alternative language translations were available.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. There was a system in place for responding to any concerns or complaints. People told us staff knew them really well and they were able to raise any concerns they had and were listened to. There was a range of activities available for people based on things they liked to do. People were positive about the activities on offer. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and support.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The home was easily accessible for those with mobility difficulties. Bedrooms allowed access for equipment that people may need. Staff ensured people had access to support they might need for example G.P services. People said, “They will call the Doctor, if it’s needed, they are very good” and “I have seen a Doctor, I think they would get anyone else, if I needed them.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff and managers expressed a commitment to ensuring people did not face discrimination and had equal opportunities within the home. A room had been set aside for people to use for quiet reflection, faith or prayer use.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Staff had received training in end-of-life care and were skilled as supporting people to share their end of life wishes and to develop clear end of life care plans.