CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ridgeview
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had detailed individual risk assessments, medicines were managed safely and staffing was sufficient. At the visit, risk assessments for behaviours that may challenge and water quality checks were missing, but the home provided evidence after the inspection that these had been completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisal. People were supported with food choices, healthcare appointments, oral health and communication, and staff understood consent and the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were gentle, supportive and knew people well. People were involved in decisions about their care, treated with dignity and supported to take part in everyday activities that promoted independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, person-centred and reviewed regularly. People had accessible information, individual activity timetables, support to keep in touch with relatives and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a clear management structure and regular audits of areas such as medicines, health and safety and food hygiene. Surveys and staff meetings were used to gather feedback and identify improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with two checks completed after the visit.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 February 2020. One inspector spoke with three people living at the home, staff and relatives, and observed care. They also checked care records, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, training, rotas and quality checks.
The home supports up to four adults with learning disabilities. Three people were living there at the inspection. Inspectors found that people appeared happy and relaxed. Staff knew them well, supported choice and independence, and helped people communicate, take part in activities and maintain relationships.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors did identify missing risk assessments for behaviours that may challenge and missing water quality checks. The home sent evidence after the inspection that both matters had been addressed.
The previous inspection rating was also Good, published on 26 June 2017. The report says the inspection was planned because of that previous rating, and the home will continue to be monitored.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices and develop skills. Staff used the least restrictive approach and encouraged people to take part in daily living activities.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff understood people's individual needs and communication styles. Inspectors saw people laughing, chatting and appearing comfortable with staff.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a gentle and supportive manner throughout the inspection.” from the report
Personalised communication
The home provided care information in pictures, large print and easy-to-understand language. Staff used different techniques to help people express their choices.
“Each person had a small booklet explaining their individual care in pictures, large font and easy to understand language.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Records showed medicines were given safely and on time. Staff had training and regular checks of their competence.
“Medicine administration records showed people received their medicines safely and on time.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had individual and group activities, including outings and pub lunches. They were supported to maintain relationships with relatives and choose holidays.
“The manager told us people went on holiday each year and were fully involved in choosing where they wanted to go.” from the report
Missing behavioural risk assessments
needs fixingAt the inspection, there were no risk assessments covering behaviours that may challenge. The home sent assessments for each person after the inspection, with guidance for staff.
“However, there were no risk assessments around any behaviour that may challenge.” from the report
Water quality checks had not been done
needs fixingThe home had checks for gas, fire safety and electrical safety, but not water quality at the time of the visit. The home later confirmed that these checks had been carried out.
“However, there had been no checks on the water quality within the home.” from the report
- 01When were the behavioural risk assessments completed, and how are they reviewed when someone's needs or behaviour changes?
- 02When was the water quality checked, and how often will these checks now be repeated?
- 03How will you support my relative to make choices if they communicate in ways that are difficult to understand?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how are people involved in choosing them?
- 05How will you keep me informed about changes in my relative's care plan or health needs?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at the care provided and the premises, and rated all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 April 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, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed support, with some records and medicine guidance still to improve.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 25 May 2017. The inspector spoke with people, relatives, the manager and staff. They also reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files, training records and quality checks.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were kept safe, staff knew their needs well and care was respectful and person-centred. Medicines were stored and managed safely, although guidance for some as-needed medicines was missing.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the service met the required standards at the time of this inspection. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in December 2014.
Staff understood people well
Staff knew people's needs, preferences and communication styles. Inspectors saw positive interactions that helped people feel supported and respected.
“Despite communication barriers that some people faced, staff knew people well and were able to clearly understand what the person was saying.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, likes, dislikes, health needs and preferred activities. People and relatives were involved in planning care.
“Each person had a detailed and person centred care plan which gave clear information and guidance on how they wished to be supported” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Recruitment records included checks such as references, identity and criminal records.
“We observed there to be sufficient staff available to support people living at the service.” from the report
Good support for choice and dignity
Staff asked for consent and supported people to make choices. Inspectors saw privacy and dignity being respected.
“During the inspection we observed the registered manager and other staff members being respectful of people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Quality checks
The home used medicine, health and safety, infection control, cleaning and care record audits. Satisfaction surveys were also completed.
“The registered manager had a number of systems in place which were used to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Missing as-needed medicine guidance
needs fixingThe home did not have written protocols explaining when and how some as-needed medicines should be given. The manager said a profile would be created.
“However, we did find that the service did not have protocols in place where people had been prescribed PRN medicines.” from the report
Medicine competency checks not recorded
needs fixingThe manager observed staff giving medicines to check their practice, but these checks were not recorded. The manager said this would be corrected.
“The registered manager in addition also completed observed competencies to check and ensure that staff were following medicine administration processes safely and appropriately. However, these were not recorded.” from the report
Some meetings were not recorded
minorPeople met with the manager and a community psychiatric nurse, but these meetings were not formalised. The manager said they would try to record them so people's views could inform improvements.
“However, these meetings were not formalised. The registered manager told us that going forward he would try to record and formalise these meetings” from the report
- 01Have written protocols now been completed for each person's as-needed medicine, including when it should be given?
- 02Are all staff medicine competency checks now recorded and reviewed?
- 03What was the outcome of discussions with the local authority about formal safeguards for people accompanied in the community?
- 04Are meetings with people and the community psychiatric nurse now formally recorded, and how are their views used?
- 05How will you make sure a new resident's needs and personality are a good match with the people already living here?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and included conversations, observations and reviews of care, medicine, staffing and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 June 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 Ridgeview
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 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 12 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Enfield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.