CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ravensworth Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding and individual risks. Medicines records were complete, staffing was adapted to people's needs, and the home was clean.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people were helped to eat, drink and access healthcare. Inspectors found that consent and best-interest decisions were handled in line with the law.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and had formed strong relationships with people. People were offered choices, treated with dignity and supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences, histories and relationships. Complaints were responded to promptly, although some people wanted more meaningful activities and individual trips out.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture and regular checks on quality and safety. People, relatives and staff were involved in suggesting improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some people wanting more meaningful activities and individual outings.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 January 2020. One inspector spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, safety checks and quality audits.
The home supported 29 older people, many living with dementia, and had places for up to 30 people. Inspectors found people felt safe and received kind, respectful care. Risks, medicines, staffing, training, nutrition and access to healthcare were managed well.
Care plans were detailed and regularly updated. Staff supported people's choices, independence, communication and relationships. Complaints were dealt with promptly, and the home had systems to monitor quality and make improvements.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection, which was also rated Good and published on 5 July 2017.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored securely and records showed that medicines had been given as prescribed. Staff training and unannounced checks were used to monitor safe practice.
“Medicines administration records had been fully completed. These gave details of the medicines people had been supported to take.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. Staff responded to requests promptly and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff had developed strong relationships with people and were seen to be genuinely kind and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories, interests, relationships and communication needs. Staff could describe how to support people as individuals.
“People received care that was individual to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Good leadership and oversight
The home had regular audits, staff meetings and opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give feedback. Inspectors found that actions were taken when concerns were identified.
“Audits and checks to monitor and improve the service were completed regularly.” from the report
More activities and outings wanted
minorThere were no scheduled group activities during the inspection because the activity co-ordinator was not on duty. One person wanted more individual trips to local shops, and surveys showed that people wanted more meaningful activities.
“One person felt there should be more occasions when staff took people out individually to the local shops.” from the report
- 01What meaningful group and individual activities are now available, including trips outside the home?
- 02How do you support people living with dementia to take part in activities that match their interests?
- 03How are staffing levels adjusted when people's needs change?
- 04How are relatives involved when a person's care needs or preferences change?
- 05How do you check that actions from surveys and meetings have led to improvements?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 2020 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, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 22 May 2017. They spoke with 14 people living there, four relatives, two health professionals, three care workers and the registered manager. They observed care, medicines administration and interactions between staff and residents. They also checked care plans, risk assessments, staff records, rotas, training records, audits and policies.
The inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management and suitable recruitment checks. Care plans were personalised and reviewed. Staff were trained and supported, and people could access health care. People were treated with kindness, their privacy and dignity were respected, and they were supported to make choices.
The home was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found good care and management in each of the five areas checked. The previous inspection, on 6 November 2015, also found the service fully compliant and Good in all areas.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind and compassionate. Inspectors saw staff speaking calmly, taking time to explain care and respecting people's dignity.
“Staff spoke with people in a calm, considerate and respectful manner, and called people by their preferred names.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's histories, interests, preferences and wishes. They were reviewed with people so they reflected changing needs.
“Individual care plans were personalised to reflect people's wishes, preferences, goals and what was important to them.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and saw that staffing levels were increased when people's care needs rose. Medicines were stored, handled and administered safely by trained staff.
“There was sufficient staff on duty in the communal areas and people were appropriately supported and did not have to wait for any required assistance.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff had relevant training, regular supervision and formal development arrangements. They felt supported and confident in their roles.
“Individual training records we saw showed staff were up to date with their essential training in topics such as moving and handling, infection control and dementia awareness.” from the report
Effective management
The manager and staff were described as approachable and supportive. Audits covered areas including medicines, care, health and safety and the environment.
“Arrangements were in place to formally assess, review and monitor the quality of care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you review staffing levels when a resident's care needs increase?
- 02How often are medicines audits and staff medicine competency checks completed?
- 03How will my relative and our family be involved in creating and reviewing the care plan?
- 04What dementia and diabetes training do staff receive, and how is it kept up to date?
- 05How can we raise a concern or complaint, and how will we be told what action was taken?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and rating of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 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 Ravensworth Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.