CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ridgeway Rise
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and medicines were managed safely. Inspectors noted that medicine incident records did not always show what action had been taken to prevent a repeat.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and support, people's dietary needs were met and they were helped to access health professionals. Information about people's mental capacity was not always recorded consistently.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and caring. Staff respected privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories, needs and preferences, and activities were available. Two activity staff had recently been recruited to provide more one-to-one time.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture, clearer management arrangements and effective audits. People, relatives and staff reported improvements since the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some room for more time with residents and clearer records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 December 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally felt safe and enjoyed living there. Inspectors found kind staff, safe medicines management, personalised care plans, suitable training and effective systems for checking quality.
There were some areas to watch. People said staff usually answered requests promptly, but did not always have time to sit and talk. Medicine incident records did not always show what was done to prevent the problem happening again. Information about people's mental capacity was also not always recorded consistently, and extra training had been arranged.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published on 2 July 2019. This inspection found that the overall rating had improved to Good, with Safe, Responsive and Well-led also improving from their previous ratings.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and caring. Staff protected privacy and dignity, offered choices and encouraged independence.
“People told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, hobbies, communication needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and adapted support to them.
“Care plans were person-centred and reflected people's history, hobbies and those who were important to the person.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and their competence was checked.
“Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home offered activities, links with local groups and opportunities designed around people's interests and wishes. Additional activity staff had been recruited.
“The provider had recruited two activity staff to ensure people had access to a range of activities that interested them.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found a positive culture and systems to monitor quality. Staff and relatives described improvements in how the home was managed.
“There were effective systems in place that enabled the provider and registered manager to monitor and improve the service.” from the report
Limited time for conversation
needs fixingAlthough call bells were answered promptly, some people said staff did not always have time to sit and speak with them. The home had recently added activity staff to improve one-to-one time.
“However people felt staff did not always have time to sit and speak with them.” from the report
Medicine incident records
needs fixingMedicine incidents were recorded and investigated, but records did not always explain what had been done to stop the problem happening again. The manager took action during the inspection.
“Records did not always show the actions taken to prevent re-occurrence.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingThe manager had identified that information about people's capacity was not always recorded consistently. Further training had been arranged.
“The registered manager had identified that information regarding people's capacity was not always consistently recorded.” from the report
- 01How much time do staff now have to sit and talk with residents, rather than only respond to care requests?
- 02What changes were made to medicine incident records, and how do you check that lessons have been acted on?
- 03How are mental capacity assessments and decisions now recorded and reviewed?
- 04Have the additional activity staff remained in post, and what one-to-one activities are currently available?
- 05What improvements have been made since the previous inspection, and how are they being monitored?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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 Ridgeway Rise
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 September 2019.
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
44 live-in carers within about an hour of Swindon
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 £990 to £1,280 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“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.