CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at New Ridley Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- There were enough staff, safe recruitment checks and effective safeguarding arrangements. However, two accidents had not been entered in the formal accident book, and records for some as-needed medicines and topical creams needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with healthcare, food and drink and communication. Inspectors noted that food and fluid monitoring was excessive for people without nutritional concerns, and oral health assessments had not yet become specific care plans.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and interactions were positive, including reassurance when people were anxious or distressed. Inspectors found limited evidence that people had been given meaningful opportunities to take part in care reviews, and saw one occasion where a person's dignity was not fully protected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed, and people were supported with activities, relationships and community access. Inspectors found that goals and outcomes, including independent living skills for some younger adults, were not always clearly recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective quality monitoring, approachable management and a clear focus on person-centred care. The manager agreed to act immediately on the accident and medicine recording issues and to review the burden of cleanliness checks.
What inspectors found, October 2019
New Ridley Road was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some medicines and record-keeping issues to improve.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 15 October 2019. One inspector spoke with two people, seven staff members and three relatives, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, positive relationships, personalised care and good support for activities, healthcare and community access.
There were some shortfalls. Two accidents were recorded in daily notes but not on accident forms. Guidance and records for some medicines were unclear. Inspectors also asked the home to reduce excessive cleanliness checks and improve some care planning records.
The overall rating remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection published in February 2017. The home was meeting the legal requirements checked during this inspection.
Kind and reassuring staff
Staff knew people well and responded positively when people became anxious or distressed. Relatives described staff as caring and welcoming.
“We saw people given immediate reassurance when they became anxious or distressed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People had personalised bedrooms and were supported to make everyday choices.
“People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to use local services and take part in activities such as social clubs, cinema trips and shopping.
“People accessed the community regularly to join activities such as social clubs, trips to the cinema and shopping.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with suitable recruitment checks and regular training.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff said management was approachable and supportive. Inspectors found the home was well run and that the manager responded openly to feedback.
“The registered manager was open and receptive about feedback at the service.” from the report
Accidents were not always formally recorded
needs fixingTwo falls from bed were recorded in daily notes and handover records but not in the formal accident book. This meant the manager did not have a complete picture for checking patterns and trends.
“One person had two falls from bed recently that were not recorded on an accident form.” from the report
Some medicine records needed improvement
needs fixingThree people did not have clear guidance for medicines given when needed. Records for topical medicines were also unclear, although the manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“Three people did not have clear guidance on 'as and when required' medicines and the recording of topical medicines was not clear.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
minorInspectors saw one occasion when staff discussed a person's toileting needs in front of others. The manager said staff would be reminded to use respectful language.
“We observed one occasion of staff not considering someone's dignity when talking in front of others about someone's toileting needs.” from the report
Some goals were not clearly recorded
minorCare plans did not always clearly highlight goals and outcomes. Inspectors said independent living skills for some younger adults could be documented better.
“We found that identified goals and outcomes weren't always consistently highlighted.” from the report
Excessive cleanliness checks
minorStaff recorded cleanliness checks every two hours. Staff felt this created too much paperwork and reduced the time available to spend with people.
“Staff were recording every two hours that bathrooms and toilets had been checked and were clean.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the way you record accidents and review falls since the inspection?
- 02Do all current care plans contain clear instructions for as-needed medicines and topical creams?
- 03How do you make sure people are meaningfully involved in their care reviews?
- 04How are each person's goals, including independence skills, recorded and checked?
- 05How do you protect people's privacy and dignity when discussing personal care needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous Good ratings from February 2017 were reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 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, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some minor dignity issues and staff training still to complete.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 27 and 28 February 2017. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, managers, relatives and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, safety checks and quality monitoring records.
The home supported up to nine people with physical and learning disabilities, including autism spectrum disorders. Inspectors found that people were safe, their needs were met, and staff understood their individual health, communication and support needs. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, food, healthcare and infection control were generally managed well.
People were treated with warmth and respect, and care was person-centred. The home supported people to make choices, stay in contact with family, use community facilities and take part in activities. Inspectors found two minor issues about dignity, which the manager addressed during the visit.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings in all five areas. This was unchanged from the previous inspection in December 2014. The report says the home met all the fundamental standards inspected against.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found staffing levels suitable for people's needs. Recruitment checks were used to assess whether staff were suitable to support vulnerable people.
“Staffing levels were appropriate on the days that we visited and ensured that people were supported safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's individual needs, preferences and communication methods. Staff were able to explain how they supported people who could not communicate verbally.
“People's care records contained care plans and other information about how to communicate with them in line with their needs.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw calm, comfortable interactions and staff who knew people well. Relatives and healthcare professionals also gave positive feedback about the care.
“People and staff experienced comfortable and pleasant engagements.” from the report
Family and community links
People were supported to keep close links with relatives and to take part in activities and trips in the community.
“People were supported to maintain close links with their families and the service operated an 'open door' policy where family members could visit the home at any time.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings, reports and action plans to monitor care and identify improvements. Support for the registered manager had also improved since the previous inspection.
“Records showed that a range of different audits and checks continued to be carried out to measure the quality of the service delivered and identify any concerns or issues.” from the report
Training still to complete
needs fixingA number of staff had not yet completed training relevant to the people living at the home, including autism awareness and epilepsy. The manager said this would be addressed as soon as practicable.
“At the time of our inspection a number of staff needed to finish their training in specific areas relevant to the needs of people living at the home, such as autism awareness and epilepsy.” from the report
Minor dignity issues
minorIncontinence aids were left in view in bedrooms and one staff member discussed personal care indiscreetly. The manager addressed both matters during the inspection.
“We identified some minor concerns at this visit related to the protection and promotion of people's dignity.” from the report
Seating equipment
needs fixingA healthcare professional reported ongoing difficulty working with the provider to obtain more suitable seating equipment for some people. The provider agreed to follow this up.
“One healthcare professional told us that whilst they enjoyed a good relationship with staff and the registered manager of the service, they had experienced ongoing difficulties in working with the provider, to ensure that some people who lived at the home had new, more appropriate seating equipment purchased for them.” from the report
Limited detail in provider visit records
minorRecords of monthly area manager visits did not show clearly how many people and staff had been consulted or exactly which records had been checked.
“We considered however that the records related to these visits were not detailed enough to demonstrate how many people and staff had been consulted about the service, and exactly how many and what type of records had been looked at.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the autism awareness and epilepsy training identified in the report?
- 02How do you make sure personal care is discussed discreetly and continence aids are stored out of sight?
- 03What progress has been made in obtaining more appropriate seating equipment for people who need it?
- 04How are monthly quality visits now recorded, including which people, staff and records were checked?
- 05How will you support my relative's communication needs, preferences and community activities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with an overall rating and ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 2017 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 New Ridley Road
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 December 2010.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 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.