CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rathmore House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that staff knew about risks and acted to reduce them. They found no evidence that the person referred to in the concern had been harmed, and other concerns had been reported and responded to properly.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The rating from the previous comprehensive inspection was used.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors did observe positive interactions between people and staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The rating from the previous comprehensive inspection was used.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The rating from the previous comprehensive inspection was used.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rathmore House was not rated in this targeted inspection; the previous overall rating remained Good and inspectors found no evidence of harm.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection after a concern that a person may have been harmed. The inspector visited on 11 May 2023, reviewed two risk assessments and care records, spoke with staff and people, and contacted other authorities involved in the investigation.
Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding risks and acted to reduce them. The investigation into the reported concern found no evidence of harm. Other concerns had been reported and dealt with properly.
Risk assessments and care plans covered areas such as medicines, moving and handling, eating and drinking, and environmental risks. Inspectors also found that the home followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and had suitable infection control arrangements.
This inspection looked only at specific parts of Safe, so it was marked inspected but not rated. The previous overall rating was Good, published in April 2018, and it remained Good because no concerns were found in the other areas.
Safeguarding response
The reported concern was investigated with other authorities, and inspectors found no evidence of harm. The home had also responded properly to other concerns.
“The result of that investigation concluded that no evidence of harm was identified.” from the report
Personalised risk planning
Risk assessments covered several safety and wellbeing needs and included guidance for staff. The relevant person's assessment and care plan had been updated after the concern.
“People using the service had person centred risk assessments.” from the report
Mental capacity safeguards
Inspectors found that the home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Required legal authorisations and conditions were in place where needed.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for preventing and managing infection, including the use of protective equipment and responding to outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What changes were made to the relevant person's risk assessment and care plan after the concern, and how do you check that staff follow them?
- 02How should a family member raise a safeguarding concern, and how will the home record and respond to it?
- 03How do you make sure staff understand each person's risks, including risks linked to medicines, moving and handling, eating and drinking, and the environment?
- 04Which residents have Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations, and how are any conditions followed?
- 05What were the ratings and findings in the last full inspection for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was a targeted inspection of specific parts of Safe, including infection prevention and control; the other areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 2023 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, March 2022
Rathmore House: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found well-managed infection control, visiting and COVID-19 arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 2 March 2022. Inspectors gave just over 24 hours’ notice. They looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home.
The home had arrangements for testing, protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks. Visitors could attend after health checks and testing. People could see relatives in their bedroom or in a small building in the garden.
The report says staffing had been challenging during a COVID-19 outbreak over Christmas and New Year, but this was managed well. The service was not given a rating, so this report does not show whether the home was good or poor overall.
Clear COVID-19 communication
Information about changing COVID-19 guidance and positive test results was managed and shared with staff, residents and relatives.
“Information about the impact and changing guidance around management of COVID-19, including any times where people had tested positive, was well managed and shared with everyone that needed to know” from the report
Managed visiting
Visitors were allowed to attend. The home used testing, health questions and temperature checks, with visits taking place in bedrooms or a garden building.
“Visitors to people were managed safely, and the home was receiving visitors.” from the report
Infection control measures
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing and keeping its infection prevention policy up to date.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Staffing plans
The home used regular agency staff when needed and had arrangements intended to stop them working in other care services.
“Regular agency staff were used if cover was required for staff absences that occurred.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing staffing pressures now, and when do you use agency staff?
- 02What steps would you take if there was a new COVID-19 outbreak?
- 03What are the current arrangements for relatives to visit, including testing and visiting locations?
- 04How do you check that agency staff are not also working in another care service?
- 05How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination requirements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 2022 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 Rathmore House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2023Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Goodstayed GoodEffective: Good
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Camden
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 £1,300 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.