CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ribston House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention and control arrangements. They were only partially assured that visits were being facilitated in line with current guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Ribston House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control overall, but visiting arrangements needed improvement.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 May 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, after concerns about visiting arrangements.
Inspectors were assured about testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing, admissions and plans for managing an outbreak. People were also supported to keep in touch with relatives electronically when visits were not possible.
Inspectors were only partially assured that visits followed current guidance. They asked the registered manager to use a more individual approach and requested information about how this would be achieved.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated result for the five questions.
Visitor area
A separate building had been provided so people could receive visitors in line with their individual visiting risk assessments.
“A new building in the front garden was providing a designated area for people to receive visitors, in line with their individual visiting risk assessment.” from the report
Keeping in touch
People were helped to stay in contact with relatives electronically when face-to-face visits could not happen.
“People had been supported to keep in touch with relatives through electronic means when visits were not possible.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
Staff used the protective equipment provided appropriately, and people and staff were tested in line with national guidance.
“Staff and people had been tested for COVID-19 in accordance with national guidance.” from the report
Outbreak planning
Plans had been updated to explain how the home would respond if an outbreak caused critical staff shortages.
“Plans had been updated to state how the service would respond to critical staff shortages during an outbreak of COVID-19.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
needs fixingInspectors were only partly assured that visits followed current guidance. They asked for a more individual approach and requested information about how this would be put into practice.
“We were partially assured the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
- 01How are visits arranged now, and how do you take account of each person's individual visiting needs?
- 02What changes were made after inspectors asked for a more individualised approach to visits?
- 03What arrangements are in place if there is a COVID-19 outbreak or critical staff shortage?
- 04What is the current COVID-19 vaccination position for staff?
- 05How will relatives stay in touch if face-to-face visits are not possible?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, mainly under Safe; it was inspected but not rated and was not a full assessment of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 July 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, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and good management, but some staff supervision had fallen behind.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 August 2018. It followed concerns about people's dignity, activities and management. The inspector spoke with one person, the registered manager and two staff, observed care and checked records.
Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect. Care plans were personalised and people had opportunities to take part in activities they chose, both at the home and in the community. Complaints arrangements were in place.
Management was accessible and quality checks were being carried out. Some staff supervision was overdue, but dates had been booked after the inspection. The home remained rated Good overall. The Safe and Effective questions were not inspected during this visit, so their earlier ratings were carried forward.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff being polite, compassionate and respectful. Staff checked whether people were happy to speak with the inspector.
“We observed interactions delivered in a manner which was kind, compassionate, sensitive and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans included people's routines, preferences and communication methods. Plans were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Choice of activities
People took part in activities at the home and in the wider community, including swimming, bowling, shopping and trips out.
“People were supported to take part in activities and interests at Ribston House and in the wider community both individually and as part of a group.” from the report
Accessible management
Staff described the manager as approachable, and checks were used to identify areas for improvement.
“The registered manager was visible and accessible to people and staff.” from the report
Overdue staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff had not received supervision on the planned schedule. The manager confirmed that dates for the overdue sessions had been booked after the inspection.
“Some staff supervision had fallen behind schedule.” from the report
- 01Have all the overdue staff supervision sessions now taken place?
- 02How do you monitor staff supervision so that future sessions are completed on the planned three-monthly schedule?
- 03How do you record that each person is taking part in activities that match their choices and interests?
- 04How are people's communication methods and changing needs reflected in their current support plans?
- 05How are concerns about staff conduct investigated and followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Caring, Responsive and Well-led issues; Safe and Effective were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 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 Ribston House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 2011.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.