CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rhodelands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. They found effective use of PPE, cleaning, testing, social distancing, visiting arrangements and an up-to-date infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 focused visit.
The home supports seven people with learning disabilities, autism and complex needs. Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 9 March 2021.
This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. It looked at infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting and the management of infection risks.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, followed shielding and distancing rules, supported testing, kept the home clean and had an up-to-date infection control policy. People and staff could consent to testing and vaccinations.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives an inspection finding about infection control, not an overall Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
PPE training
Staff had infection control training and were confident about using PPE correctly.
“Staff had received infection control training and were confident they knew how to put on and take off PPE in the right way.” from the report
Cleaning
The home was cleaned throughout the day, with frequently touched areas wiped regularly.
“We saw the home was cleaned throughout the day in touch points were wiped regularly.” from the report
Testing and monitoring
Staff testing was carried out weekly and testing for people was carried out monthly when needed. People's temperatures were checked twice daily.
“Testing, when needed, was completed weekly for staff and monthly for people using the service.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home had arrangements to allow friends and relatives to visit safely, based on current guidance.
“The provider had reviewed the latest guidance in relation to friends and relatives visiting the home, and systems were in place to accommodate visitors safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the home's current CQC ratings for care, staffing, medicines and leadership, as these were not assessed in this report?
- 02What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested when there is a suspected infection or outbreak?
- 04How are visits from relatives managed now?
- 05How often are staff trained and checked on the safe use of PPE?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 2021 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some areas for improvement in communication, end-of-life planning and community links.
This was a planned inspection of the care home. One inspector reviewed records, observed care in communal areas, spoke with one person, three relatives and five staff, and checked medicines, recruitment and management records. Inspection activity ran from 11 to 19 November 2019.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, supported by trained staff and given medicines safely. Staff were described as kind and caring, and knew people well.
Care plans were detailed and person-centred. People were supported to make choices, keep their independence, communicate their needs and take part in activities. The manager was visible and approachable, and relatives and staff generally felt the home was well managed.
The report also identified some improvements. Staff could develop their knowledge of Makaton, end-of-life preferences had not been recorded, only one relative survey had been returned, and there was limited evidence of strong links with the wider local community.
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were given by trained staff, checked daily and errors were investigated. Staffing levels were based on people's assessed needs.
“Medicines were safely managed and were administered by staff who had received specific training.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff formed positive relationships with people and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Detailed personal support
Care plans gave staff clear guidance about individual needs, preferences and communication. People were supported to choose activities and develop independence.
“Care plans were person centred, very detailed and of good quality providing staff with the guidance needed to support people.” from the report
Creative communication support
The home used tailored sensory and communication resources, including boards designed around individual needs. These helped one person become more independent.
“The communication boards had given additional independence to the person” from the report
Approachable management
The manager was visible and available to people, relatives and staff. The home reviewed incidents, complaints and other information to identify improvements.
“The registered manager had an 'open door' management approach which meant they were easily available to people, relatives and staff.” from the report
Makaton knowledge
minorOne relative felt staff would benefit from wider knowledge of Makaton sign language. This was raised with the manager for action.
“However, one relative felt staff would benefit from widening their knowledge of Makaton sign language.” from the report
End-of-life preferences
needs fixingCare plans did not record people's cultural, spiritual or end-of-life wishes. The manager said these discussions would be taken forward.
“Care plans did not record people's cultural, spiritual or preferences for end of life wishes.” from the report
Limited relative feedback
minorThe home sought feedback from relatives, but only one survey had been returned. The manager said the survey format would be reviewed.
“However, we saw only one survey had been returned.” from the report
Limited local community links
minorPeople took part in activities and social events, but inspectors found little evidence of strong links with the wider local community.
“However, there was little evidence of strong links being established within the local community” from the report
- 01How will you make sure staff understand and use the person's preferred communication method, including Makaton if needed?
- 02When and how will you discuss and record the person's cultural, spiritual and end-of-life wishes?
- 03What activities and opportunities are available for the person to build links in the wider local community?
- 04How will you involve relatives in care reviews and collect their feedback?
- 05How will you support the person to make choices and develop greater independence?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous Good ratings remaining unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 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.
Every inspection of Rhodelands
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
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 20 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.