CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ridgewood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, regular risk reviews and medicines being given safely, although the medicines recording system did not follow current best-practice guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and staff knew how to support them. People had choices about food and drink, received suitable training and could access healthcare support.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives consistently described staff as kind and caring. People were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed with people and their relatives or representatives. The home supported activities, communication needs, relationships and visits during the pandemic.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff said the home was consistently well-led and that the manager was approachable. However, some governance and audit work was not documented, so the home could not always show the work being done to maintain safety and quality.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some quality checks were not always recorded.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 January 2022. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also reviewed care records, recruitment files, training records, medicines records and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines administration, good infection control and support from healthcare professionals.
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. People had choices about food, activities, visits and how they spent their time. Staff supported independence and respected people's individual needs and preferences.
The main improvement point was that some governance and audit work was not documented. The medicines recording system was also not in line with current best practice, although inspectors found no errors or gaps in the records they checked. The manager said changes were made after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently praised staff for being kind, caring and respectful. Staff took time to build trusted relationships and support people's independence.
“People and their relatives consistently praised the staff and told us the home was like one big family.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. People and relatives said staff responded quickly when support was needed.
“There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs in a timely manner.” from the report
Personalised choices
People had choices about their care, meals, bedrooms, communal areas and activities. Staff knew people's needs, preferences and communication styles.
“People chose how their bedrooms were decorated and what furniture they preferred.” from the report
Support for relationships and activities
The home supported people to maintain contact with relatives and friends, including during pandemic restrictions. People could take part in activities and meaningful tasks.
“The registered manager ensured people always spent time with relatives, even during the pandemic.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home investigated accidents and reviewed risks to reduce the chance of problems happening again. Inspectors found a culture of openness and continuous improvement.
“There was a culture of learning and implementing improvements if things had gone wrong.” from the report
Quality checks not always recorded
needs fixingThe manager had systems to identify patterns and improvements, but these were not always documented. This meant the home could not always show what work had been done to maintain safety and quality.
“However, these were not always documented.” from the report
Medicines process needed updating
needs fixingPeople received their medicines safely and inspectors found no errors or gaps in the records checked. However, the recording system did not follow current best-practice guidance, so the manager sought advice and updated processes after the inspection.
“Although the system was not in line with current best practice guidelines there were no errors or gaps in the records we reviewed.” from the report
- 01What new governance and audit processes were introduced after the inspection?
- 02How are quality checks, incidents and improvements recorded now?
- 03What changes were made to the medicines recording system after advice from the pharmacist?
- 04How will you make sure there are enough staff to respond promptly to my relative's needs?
- 05How will my relative be supported to keep in contact with family and take part in activities they enjoy?
This was an unannounced first inspection under the current provider and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control and COVID-19 vaccination requirements. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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 Ridgewood House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 July 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
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.