Ravensdale provides care and treatment for people with physical disabilities and/or mental health problems. The service can accommodate a maximum of 20 people. On the first day of our inspection, there were 18 people using the service. On the second day there were 17 people.

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

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was no registered manager in post. 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.

The provider’s operations manager had been managing the service on a day to day basis since January 2018 and had applied to the CQC to become the registered manager. In addition to this, an experienced interim manager had been appointed in June 2018 to give further support to the service and recruitment for a registered manager remained on-going. The management team were also supported by a clinical nurse manager. The management team showed a commitment to running a well led service for the benefit of the people who used the service.

People told us they felt safe with the support offered. Staff could describe and understood their responsibilities to support people to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were recruited safely which ensured they were of a good character to work with people who used this service. Staff met people's needs in a safe way and were overall, available when people needed and wanted support. Plans to improve permanent staffing were in place.

Systems for managing medicines safely were overall, effective. The management team responded swiftly to some issues we identified with medicines support to ensure safe medicines management. Staff were trained in medication administration and their competency was checked regularly.

Staff training was updated regularly and staff had regular supervision that helped identify training needs and improve the quality of care. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and said they felt well supported by a management team who were open and approachable.

People were encouraged to eat a healthy, balanced diet of their choice. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals in order to meet their health needs

People said they were treated well. People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was protected and staff understood people's individual needs in relation to their care. Support plans were person centred and reflected individual's preferences.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service) supported this practice. The management team and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They had made appropriate referrals to the relevant authorities to ensure people's rights were protected.

Care records contained enough information to guide staff on the care and support required and contained information relating to what was important to the person and how any risks were managed. These were reviewed regularly and showed inv

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 25 November 2015. Our last inspection took place on 22 May 2013 and we found the regulations we looked at were being met.

Ravensdale provides care and treatment for people with physical disabilities and/or mental health problems. The service can accommodate a maximum of 20 people.

At the time of this inspection the home 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.

Staff knew about their responsibilities in safeguarding people. They were able to identify different types of abuse and knew where to report their concerns. They also demonstrated their knowledge of the provider’s whistleblowing policy.

Staffing levels in the home were sufficient, although some gaps existed in the covering of shifts. The registered manager was in the process of recruiting to vacant posts. Risks and medicines were managed safely in the home. Staff inductions were thorough and completion levels for staff training were high. Some staff had not received regular supervisions and appraisals.

Staff were seen providing care which was kind, caring and unhurried. Staff and people exchanged good humour. People were treated with respect and dignity and visitors told us they were welcome at any time.

Staff worked with a range of health professionals to ensure people maintained good health. People were positive about the food on offer and they could request alternative dishes. The provider had a ‘food forum’ for people to have their say about menus.

The service was meeting its legal responsibilities to people under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and people had decision specific assessments in place.

People’s care plans contained sufficient and relevant information to provide consistent, person centred care and support. People and their relatives knew how to complain and when this happened this was recorded and people received a response. Although the activities coordinator was fulfilling a different role in the home due to staff shortages, we saw people were supported to take part in activities inside the home and in the community.

Staff and the registered manager felt supported in their roles. Visitors felt the registered manager was approachable. Resident and staff surveys had been carried out, but where feedback was required this had not taken place. A range of audits were carried out to make sure the systems that were in place were effective. People living in the home had their own forum and where action was needed we saw this was taken to improve the service based on their feedback.

People who used the service were helped and encouraged to make choices about their own care and treatment. They, or their relatives, were able to communicate their views and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Relatives spoke highly of the service and the staff. One said, “The staff are brilliant, all of them” and “They are really patient.”

We found the needs of people who used the service were fully assessed before they moved into the home and that they and their relatives were involved in the assessments. People told the provider and staff about their daily routines and their likes and dislikes.

The home was in good condition, well maintained and decorated to a high standard. There were no malodours and furnishings and carpets were free from damage or stains. One relative told us “It's beautiful, the rooms are lovely.” Cleaning procedures took account of good practice guidance and the staff were aware of the measures they should take to prevent and control the spread of infections.

The provider had appropriate procedures for the recruitment of new staff and carried out appropriate checks of their character and ability to carry out their role prior to them startng work at the service.

There were procedures to monitor the quality of the service and these were regularly assessed by the provider. The provider sought the views of people who used the service, their relatives and staff and acted on the findings to improve the service.

Some people who used the service had complex needs which meant that they were not able to tell us their experiences. Those who were told us they were happy with all aspects of service.

People who used the service spoke highly of the care staff. One person described them as ‘smashing’, another person said “They were comfortable at the home and staff looked after them well.” One person said “I’m out a lot; I just need to let them know when I’m coming back.”

People told us they were able to make suggestions and requests for future meals. If they didn’t like what was on the menu they were able to ask for something else to be prepared.

We were unable to communicate verbally with some people who use the service to find out their views and experiences. One person said, “The staff are great and they are always very nice.” We asked two people if they can choose what to do and they confirmed they could. They told us they liked living at Ravensdale. One person raised concerns about the care they received and we followed up their concerns with the care provider.

One regular visitor told us they were always made to feel welcome and staff were good at passing on important information. They said, “Staff are very understanding, polite and friendly. They give people choice but if the residents don’t want to get involved they respect that.”

In the main, staff told us people received appropriate care and their needs were met. Staff said people were treated with respect and given choice. One member of staff said, “We cover privacy and dignity at our induction. All staff know what to do.” Another member of staff said, “Choice is promoted. Independence works well as long as we have enough staff.”

We received a mixed response when we asked about support for staff. Some staff said they had received good support and regularly met with a member of the management team to discuss their work; others said they had not received enough support and didn’t feel that they were always listened too. One member of staff said, “We need more communication, better handovers, more meetings.”