Rivacre House

Updated 15 February 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 3 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service one day's notice of the inspection.

Updated 15 February 2022

We carried out an unannounced inspection on the 23 and 26 January 2018.

We last visited the service in October 2015. We rated the service as good following that visit with an outstanding rating attached to our question whether the service was responsive.

Rivacre House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Rivacre House provided personal care for up to 12 people with mental health needs. All bedrooms are single with en suite facilities. The home is a two storey building located near Ellesmere Port town centre, close to shops and local facilities. The home has twelve single bedrooms. At the time of our visit, 12 people were living at Rivacre House.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they feel safe living at the service and stated that staff were always around to assist them. Staff had a good understanding on the types of abuse that could happen and provided a good account of action they would take. Staff had a good understanding on how to raise concerns about poor care practice with other agencies.

The premises were well maintained, clean and hygienic. All equipment used in the building was regularly checked to ensure safety. People had individual evacuation plans in place in the event of needing to leave the building in an emergency. Risk assessments were in place for individuals. These were up to date and took the hazards they faced while being supported and from the environment into account.

Medication was safely managed. People told us that they received their medication when required and in some cases sought to become more independent in managing their own medication.

Accidents and incidents were recorded with patterns and trends identified to prevent re-occurrence in the future.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people. Recruitment processes were robust and further sought to protect people who used the service.

Staff received the training they needed to perform their role. They also received supervision to monitor their work practice. A structured induction process was in place to enable new staff to settle into their role and become acquainted with the values of the service.

The registered provider adhered to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were able to outline its principles and had received training in this area.

The nutritional needs of people were met. Kitchen facilities were clean and hygienic and contained information about special dietary requirements that people had. People who used the service were able to influence the contents of menus and prepare meals for themselves on a one to one basis as part of gaining more independence.

Staff interactions with people were respectful and caring. Staff demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that people experienced the same opportunities to access the local community and to reach their aspirations.

.

People felt cared about and felt that staff promoted their privacy. People felt their views were listened to and acted upon.

The registered provider had identified the factors that influence positive mental health and had responded to such situations. One person we spoke with was very positive about their lives at Rivacre House especially after the registered manager had responded in introducing measures to keep the person safe and to reassure them. Another person had been supported by the registered manager to follow their preferred diverse lifestyle and again this had positive effects on the person’s health.

People had a significant influence on their support plans. Support plans were personalised and devised by the individual. Staff had a role in facilitating people to devise, follow and evaluate their progress.. Support plans were reinforced by assessment records which covered all aspects of the support provided.

People were able to pursue daily activities or employment opportunities of their choice. Activities were significantly geared to the individual preferences of people. A complaints procedure was available. No one had a complaint but people felt confident that their concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

The registered manager had fostered a transparent and open culture within the service. All people involved within the service; individuals and staff alike. Aims and objectives had been gained form everyone for the forthcoming year and how the service could further develop.

The registered provider had a number of audits in place to check the quality of the support provided. People who used the service had the opportunity to meaningfully influence the service through the opportunity to attend resident meetings.

The service always notified the Care Quality Commission of events that adversely affected people who used the service.