CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ridgewell House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found problems with medicines management, recruitment records, care plans, risk assessments, property maintenance and infection control practice. They found people were protected from abuse and that staff understood safeguarding.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and the improvement plan had not provided enough oversight. Some actions were old and incomplete, although the new manager responded promptly and was working to resolve the concerns.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in medicines, care records and oversight, although safeguarding and the new manager's response were positive.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 22 August 2022, reviewed records and observed care. They also spoke with relatives and staff and checked training and quality records.
The home was not always safe or well-led. Inspectors found problems with medicines records, care plans, risk assessments, recruitment records and infection control practice. Audits had not identified several of these issues, and some improvement actions had remained unfinished.
People were protected from abuse, and staff understood safeguarding and mental capacity requirements. The new manager was committed to improvement and acted on concerns after the inspection. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement because Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Safeguarding
Staff had safeguarding training and could explain how to recognise abuse and protect people from harm.
“Staff had received safeguarding training and were able to tell us about the different types of abuse” from the report
Respect for choices
The report found that the home followed mental capacity principles and used least restrictive approaches, with the required legal authorisations in place where needed.
“The service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place” from the report
Manager's response
The new manager acknowledged the shortfalls and acted after the inspection by providing an updated improvement plan and making some changes.
“Following the inspection, the manager responded promptly to the concerns raised, confirming what actions they planned to take” from the report
Communication with relatives
Relatives gave positive feedback about communication, including being kept informed by telephone.
“Communication is good I cannot fault them – they always phone me, I feel they are open and transparent.” from the report
Medicines records and practice
seriousSome medicines documentation was incomplete or out of date. An as-required medicine had been given through homely remedies for an extended period after its prescription had run out.
“medicines care plans provided information that was inconsistent and not always completed, such as specific allergies were not documented.” from the report
Care plans and risk records
seriousCare plans and risk assessments were not always reviewed after people's needs changed. This meant records did not always give staff enough information for safe care.
“Care plans did not always give staff the information they needed to provide safe care.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment records
needs fixingThe home did not have enough permanent staff and relied on agency workers. Recruitment files also had gaps in references and explanations for gaps in employment.
“The service did not have enough permanent staff and relied on agency workers to meet the staffing levels required.” from the report
Quality oversight
needs fixingAudits failed to identify several issues found by inspectors. Some improvement actions, including garden safety work, had remained unresolved for a long time.
“Though audits were in place, they needed to be used more effectively, as they failed to pick up the issues identified as part of this inspection” from the report
Infection control practice
needs fixingInspectors saw some staff wearing personal protective equipment incorrectly. The infection control policy had not always been updated to reflect current guidance.
“However, during our inspection we observed staff wearing PPE incorrectly.” from the report
- 01Which medicines records and protocols have been updated since the inspection, including allergy information and homely remedies?
- 02Have all care plans and risk assessments been reviewed after changes in people's needs or diagnoses?
- 03What has been done to recruit and retain more permanent staff, and how is the use of agency staff being monitored?
- 04Which actions in the service improvement plan are now complete, including the garden safety work?
- 05How are audits now checking medicines, care records, recruitment and risk management so that problems are found sooner?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 November 2022 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 controls but some areas and equipment were not clean.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
The home had good arrangements for testing, visitor screening, personal protective equipment and safe admissions. Staff were observed using masks, gloves and aprons when appropriate.
Inspectors were not fully assured about cleanliness. Some areas and equipment were not clean, including a split and dirty mattress being used as a crash mat. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
COVID-19 testing
The home followed government testing guidance for residents and staff, and reviewed its approach when the guidance changed.
“The registered manager followed government guidance on COVID-19 testing for people who lived at the service and the staff team.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visits were arranged at suitable times and visitors were screened with temperature checks, a questionnaire, protective equipment and rapid testing.
“The service had taken appropriate measures to screen visitors including temperature checks, a questionnaire, the wearing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and rapid testing to keep infection risks to a minimum.” from the report
Safe admissions
People coming from hospital or their own homes had their COVID-19 status checked before admission and self-isolated in line with guidance.
“People were admitted to the service safely from both hospital and their own home.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had infection control training and were observed using protective equipment appropriately.
“The staff team were observed using infection prevention practices, which included wearing masks, gloves and aprons when appropriate.” from the report
Cleanliness and equipment
needs fixingInspectors found that some areas and equipment were not clean. One mattress being used as a crash mat was split and dirty, and replacement mats had not yet arrived.
“There was not an effective system for infection prevention and control. Areas of the premises and some equipment were not clean.” from the report
- 01Have the split and dirty crash mat and the other unclean equipment now been replaced or cleaned?
- 02What extra domestic cleaning arrangements are now in place?
- 03How do you check that infection prevention and control standards are being maintained every day?
- 04How are staffing pressures managed if staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 05How are visits currently arranged and what screening is required?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide a full service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 2022 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 Ridgewell House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.