CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ravenlea
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines were given safely, risks were assessed and there were enough suitably recruited staff. Safeguarding concerns were reported and investigated.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on assessments of people's needs. Staff had relevant training and supported people with healthcare, food, drink and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion. They protected privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and updated when needs changed. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication and their individual preferences.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider and management team monitored care quality, listened to feedback and used incidents, audits and reviews to make improvements.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Ravenlea was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with earlier concerns resolved.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 16 January 2019. They met everyone living there, spoke with four people and two staff, and spoke with the deputy and registered manager. They also observed daily life and reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records, incidents, complaints, maintenance and quality checks.
The home supported up to seven people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. Six people lived there at the inspection. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient and staff were suitably trained and recruited.
People received personalised care and were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. Staff were described as kind and respectful. Inspectors also found good links with health professionals and good systems for monitoring the quality of care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. At the previous inspection in September 2017, two regulations had been breached. This inspection found that the required improvements had been made.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records showed when and how much had been given. Staff had appropriate training and competency checks.
“These records were up to date and had no gaps or omissions.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm, trusting relationships. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity and communicated in ways people understood.
“Staff spoke with people with courtesy and kindness and it was clear that relationships of trust had been built.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, interests, preferences and support needs. People were encouraged to choose activities and develop independence.
“Each person had a detailed care plan that identified how their assessed needs were to be met.” from the report
Improved management
The home had acted on the two breaches found at the previous inspection. Inspectors found better handling of safeguarding notifications and safety concerns.
“This inspection found required improvement had been made and the previous concerns were addressed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative if they have epilepsy, diabetes or another specific health condition?
- 02How do you make sure medicines, including medicines taken when needed, are given and recorded safely?
- 03How would my relative be involved in reviewing their care plan and choosing activities?
- 04How would you record and respect my relative's wishes about future illness or end of life care?
- 05How is the home managed when the registered manager is working across three services?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 March 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, January 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective and responsive care, but safeguarding and management processes were not consistently reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 and 22 September 2017. Inspectors reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, training records, incidents, complaints, equipment checks and quality audits. They also spoke with people living at the home, staff and managers, and observed people's interactions.
The home had made some improvements since the previous inspection in August 2016. Care plans and risk assessments were better, medicines were being given safely at the time of the inspection, and staffing, training, health care and activities were generally good.
However, some safeguarding concerns had not been reported promptly. Two statutory notifications were also sent late. Inspectors found that some checks and action plans had not yet become part of everyday practice. The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good, while Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful staff
People appeared comfortable with staff. Staff protected privacy and dignity and spoke with people in a caring way.
“Staff were caring, kind and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans described people's communication, routines, preferences, risks and health needs. Inspectors found that plans were up to date and reflected the support given.
“Care plans gave staff an understanding of the person and were personalised to help staff to support the person in the way that they liked.” from the report
Enough staff and suitable recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Activities and independence
People chose from a range of activities and were supported to go out, maintain family contact and develop daily living skills.
“People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Late notifications to CQC
seriousTwo statutory notifications about significant events were sent retrospectively rather than without delay.
“Although they had subsequently been forwarded to CQC, they were not made without delay, therefore the service had not informed CQC of significant events in a timely way.” from the report
Quality improvements not fully embedded
needs fixingProvider audits had identified problems with medicines, safeguarding reporting and notifications, but some corrective actions were still ongoing. One liquid medicine had not been dated when opened.
“Additionally, the service's audit action plan to address some of the concerns identified had not yet been embedded into everyday practice.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every safeguarding concern is reported immediately to the local authority?
- 02What checks confirm that medicines are recorded, stored, returned and disposed of correctly?
- 03How do you make sure action plans are followed every day, rather than only identified during audits?
- 04Have all staff completed the new medicines competency checks, and how often are these repeated?
- 05How are outstanding staff supervision, recruitment file and best interest decision reviews being completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with two people away and some people understood through observation rather than direct conversation. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 2018 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 Ravenlea
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 August 2012.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.