Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Rivers Reach, Titchfield, Fareham.

Rivers Reach in Titchfield, Fareham is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults under 65 yrs and learning disabilities. The last inspection date here was 3rd August 2019

Rivers Reach is managed by Voyage 1 Limited who are also responsible for 289 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Rivers Reach
      Fontley Road
      Titchfield
      Fareham
      PO15 6QX
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01329842759
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-08-03
    Last Published 2017-01-19

Local Authority:

    Hampshire

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

6th December 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection took place on 6 December 2016. The service was last inspected in June 2014 and at that time was meeting the regulations we inspected.

Rivers Reach provides accommodation and personal care for up to five people who have learning disabilities. The service is located in Titchfield, Hampshire. At the time of our inspection five people were living at the service.

There was a registered manager in place who had been registered with the Care Quality Commission since 2007. 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.

Risks to people arising from their health and support needs and the premises were assessed, and plans were in place to minimise them. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed to ensure they met people’s current needs. A number of checks were carried out around the service to ensure that the premises and equipment were safe to use.

There were systems in place to ensure that people received their medication as prescribed.

Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Staff told us they received training to be able to carry out their role. Staff were given effective supervision and a yearly appraisal.

Staff understood safeguarding issues, and felt confident to raise any concerns they had in order to keep people safe.

Staff received training to ensure that they could appropriately support people, and the service used the Care Certificate as the framework for its training. The Care Certificate is an identified set of standards that health and social care workers adhere to in their daily working life. It sets out explicitly the learning outcomes, competences and standards of care that will be expected. Staff had received Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training and clearly understood the requirements of the Act which meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions. The registered manager understood their responsibilities in relation to the DoLS.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet, and people’s dietary needs and preferences were catered for. People told us they had a choice of food at the service, and that they enjoyed it.

The service worked with external professionals to support and maintain people’s health. Staff knew how to make referrals to external professionals where additional support was needed. Care plans contained evidence of the involvement of GPs, district nurses and other professionals.

We found there was sufficient staff on duty to support people with their assessed needs and to sit and chat with them. The interactions between people and staff were cheerful and supportive. Staff were kind and respectful; we saw that they were aware of how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People and their relatives spoke highly of the care they received.

Procedures were in place to support people to access advocacy services should the need arise. One person who used the service advocated against crime, hate and bullying by speaking publically at meetings and conferences.

Care was planned and delivered in way that responded to people’s assessed needs. Plans contained detailed information on people’s personal preferences, and people and their relatives said care reflected those preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they met people’s current needs.

People had access to a wide range of activities, which they told us they enjoyed.

The service had a clear complaints policy that was applied when issues arose. People and their relatives knew how to raise any issues they had.

Staff were able to

30th June 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with three of the five people who lived at Rivers Reach. We also spoke with the registered manager and two members of staff.

We also used this inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.

Is the service safe?

Individualised care plans detailed the support and care each person required. People confirmed they received the support and care they needed and liked. The home ensured relevant health care professionals were contacted when needed.

The manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). At this time no applications had needed to be submitted. Guidance was readily available to support the manager should an application need to be made in the future. The manager told us they regularly checked practices to ensure they did not restrict people in any way. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We saw the home completed a weekly and monthly audit whereby they checked the stock levels and expiry dates of the medication on site.

Rivers Reach had a recruitment process in place which showed relevant checks were carried out before a person commenced employment.

Is the service effective?

We observed people being offered choices as to when they received support with their personal care and what they wanted to eat for lunch. Staff were observed to support people in a calm and respectful manner. People told us they were involved in decisions about how they were looked after and had choices about how they wished to spend their day.

Staff were knowledgeable about people's personal, behavioural, social and health needs. Staff had signed to confirm they knew the content of people's plans of care and how to put the care plan guidelines into practice.

Is the service caring?

People living at Rivers Reach were very positive about the staff and management.

We saw that people were supported by staff who were kind and attentive. Staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. They were aware of people's needs and the preferences of people they cared for in how people wanted care to be delivered.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that care plans were reviewed monthly and amended as needs changed.

Records showed that people who used the service were encouraged to be active and be part of the local community. People were able to engage in a wide range of activities.

People said that they had no complaints about the service and that if they did they would speak to the staff or the manager.

Is the service well led?

The home was well managed and there were clear lines of leadership in place, meaning the home was organised and communication was effective.

Annual surveys were sent out to stakeholders including, professionals, staff, people who used the service and their families.

All staff received supervision once every two months and annual appraisals. Staff performance issues were discussed and training needs were identified.

 

 

Latest Additions: