CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at High Ridges
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe staffing and recruitment, good safeguarding arrangements, safe medicines practice and appropriate responses to accidents and incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments, tailored staff training and support with healthy eating and healthcare. Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always recorded to show how decisions had been made.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found a warm, welcoming and inclusive atmosphere. People were treated with dignity and involved in decisions about their care, independence and daily lives.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support was exceptionally personalised and flexible. People were helped to achieve ambitious goals, build skills, follow their faiths, maintain relationships and take part in community activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and empowering culture. People and relatives were involved in running the home, and quality checks and learning from incidents were used to make improvements.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsive care; inspectors found a warm, person-centred home but said some mental capacity records were incomplete.
Inspectors visited on 29 and 30 May 2019. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and healthcare professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files and safety and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People were supported by skilled staff who promoted independence, choice and community involvement. Inspectors found safe medicines practice, good staff training and strong healthcare support.
Responsive was rated Outstanding. Care was highly personalised and people were supported to achieve ambitious goals, develop skills, follow their beliefs and take part in activities. The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, while Responsive improved from Good to Outstanding.
Inspectors found that mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always recorded clearly. The provider agreed to review this.
Promoting independence
Staff encouraged people to set ambitious goals and develop their skills. Inspectors found this had a positive effect on confidence and wellbeing.
“People were encouraged to set ambitious goals and achieved these, which had highly positive impacts on their wellbeing and confidence.” from the report
Highly personalised support
Care was adapted to each person’s needs, wishes, beliefs and communication style. People were supported to try new experiences and make progress with daily tasks.
“Care was tailored to each person.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to take part in activities, work experience, religious services and local community life. They were also helped to maintain family and friendship links.
“People were integrated and welcomed into their local communities and made full use of a range of community facilities.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found positive relationships between people and staff. People’s privacy, dignity, choices and cultural backgrounds were respected.
“There was a warm, caring atmosphere at the service.” from the report
Incomplete decision records
needs fixingRecords did not always show how a person’s capacity had been assessed or how a best-interest decision had been reached. The provider agreed to review this.
“Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not always recorded to show how people's capacity had been assessed and decisions taken in their best interests.” from the report
- 01How do you currently record mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions?
- 02How are people involved in setting goals and reviewing their progress?
- 03How would you support my relative to follow their religious, cultural or communication needs?
- 04What activities, work experience or community opportunities could be available to my relative?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviews, feedback and decisions about changes to the home?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating and four question ratings remained Good from the previous inspection, while Responsive improved from Good to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with effective management and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed two care plans, staff training records and quality checks.
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and that risks were assessed and managed. Staffing levels were based on people's needs. Medicines were given safely by trained staff. Staff had suitable induction, training and supervision.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans reflected people's choices, needs and goals. People and relatives were involved in decisions and could give feedback or complain. All five areas inspected were rated Good. This means the service met the CQC standards at the time of this inspection, although it does not mean that care will always be perfect.
Safety and safeguarding
Staff were trained to recognise and report abuse. Risks linked to each person's care and support had been assessed and plans were in place to manage them.
“People were protected from harm and abuse by staff who had received training in how to recognise, respond to and report abuse.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, ongoing training and supervision. Training included communication methods and support for people's individual needs.
“People were supported by staff with the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions between staff and people. People were treated with dignity and supported to express their views.
“People were supported in a kind and caring manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans focused on people's strengths, preferences, interests and goals. People were supported to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
“People received care and support that was tailored to their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views. The provider used audits and other checks to identify improvements.
“The provider had developed quality assurance systems to drive improvement at the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are my relative's risks and care plans reviewed, and how will I be involved in those reviews?
- 02What communication methods will staff use if my relative uses signs, pictures or other communication support?
- 03How will you support my relative with eating and drinking, including any dietary or swallowing risks?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given safely, and what happens if a medicine is refused or an error occurs?
- 05What activities and community opportunities are available, and how are my relative's own interests and goals included?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the service, covering all five CQC questions and providing ratings for each. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 December 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of High Ridges
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 August 2013.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.