CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ridley Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities. Medicines were generally managed well, but missed medicines had been investigated and thickeners were not always stored securely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management had not been consistent. Safeguarding procedures were not always followed, medicines checks had not identified every problem, and staff and family meetings had been limited.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good overall, but well-led was Requires Improvement after concerns about safeguarding, medicines checks and management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 July and 3 August 2023. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led only. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, risks were assessed and the home was maintained safely. Medicines were generally managed well, but there had been concerns about missed medicines and some thickeners were not always stored securely.
The home was rated Good for Safe. It was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led because safeguarding procedures had not always been followed, medicines checks had missed some issues, and staff and family meetings had not always happened as required. The overall rating changed from Outstanding to Good. The other three question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection because they were not inspected this time.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe with current staff. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns.
“People and relatives told us they felt safe with current staff.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The provider also carried out recruitment checks and was recruiting bank staff to cover shortages.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw good relationships between people and staff. Staff were described as respectful and kind.
“Staff were respectful and kind towards people, relatives, and each other.” from the report
Legal safeguards
The home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Where needed, legal authorisations were in place and their conditions were being met.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.” from the report
Health care links
The home worked with other services and had good relationships with health professionals.
“The staff who I have liaised with have been kind, caring and supportive towards the residents.” from the report
Safeguarding procedures
seriousA safeguarding investigation was underway. It indicated that some staff, including the previous registered manager, had not always followed the provider's safeguarding procedures.
“A safeguarding investigation was taking place which indicated some staff had not always acted in line with the providers policies and procedures, including the previous registered manager.” from the report
Medicines storage and checks
needs fixingThere had been concerns about missed medicines. Some medicines records had issues that quality checks did not identify, and thickeners were not always stored securely.
“Thickeners used to help people with swallowing difficulties were not always stored securely.” from the report
Inconsistent leadership
needs fixingThe service had not been consistently well-led. There was no registered manager in post during the inspection, and the previous manager had recently resigned.
“The service had not been consistently well led.” from the report
Limited meetings and support
needs fixingStaff meetings had not taken place for an extended period, and meetings for people and families had been limited. The acting manager was addressing this.
“The previous registered manager had not engaged with staff as well as they should have.” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the safeguarding investigation, and what changes have been made to prevent a repeat?
- 02How are missed medicines now investigated and checked, and how will medicines audits be reviewed?
- 03How are thickeners stored securely, and how is this checked each day?
- 04Has a new registered manager been appointed and has an application to register been made?
- 05How often are meetings now held with staff, residents and families, and how are concerns followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 2023 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, December 2021
Overall rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally caring, responsive and well-led care, with minor medicines recording issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 and 30 September 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Caring, Responsive and Well-led were Outstanding. Safe and Effective were Good. People and relatives spoke very positively about the care, and inspectors found staff knew people well and responded quickly when their needs changed.
Medicines were generally managed well, but inspectors found some minor recording problems. These were dealt with straight away and had no impact on people. The provider was advised to review its medicine recording procedures.
Exceptionally caring staff
Inspectors found strong, respectful relationships between staff and people. Staff went out of their way to support people and their families, including during the pandemic.
“Staff provided exceptionally caring and compassionate care and support to people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's life histories, likes and dislikes. Staff adapted support to individual choices, including how people spent their time and communicated.
“Care plans were highly person centred. A full life history had been collected, and records included details of people's likes and dislikes.” from the report
Creative activities and family contact
The home found creative ways to reduce isolation during restrictions. This included safe visiting areas, tablets, phone calls, themed events and support for religious and family connections.
“A range of methods were used, including building new areas to meet face to face safely, new electronic tablet devices throughout the home and additional mobile telephones purchased” from the report
Strong leadership
The new registered manager and senior team supported staff well and were open to feedback. Quality checks were used to identify and address issues.
“The registered manager had an overarching governance system to ensure that excellent quality of care was provided.” from the report
Medicines recording
minorSome records for as-required medicines, creams and lotions were incomplete. One person's cleaning routine for their feeding tube was not recorded. These issues were corrected immediately and caused no identified harm.
“We found some minor recording issues, including in connection with 'as required' medicines and topical creams and lotions.” from the report
Staffing gaps
needs fixingThere were some gaps in staffing numbers. The home monitored this and used agency staff to cover shortages, but families should ask how often this happens and whether it affects continuity.
“There were some gaps in staffing numbers, but the service monitored this closely and provided agency staff to fill any shortages.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine recording procedures since the inspection?
- 02How often are agency staff used, and will my relative usually be supported by familiar staff?
- 03How will you keep my relative involved in decisions about their care and daily choices?
- 04What activities and visiting arrangements are currently available now that COVID-19 restrictions have eased?
- 05How are end-of-life wishes recorded and shared with relatives and health professionals?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 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.
Every inspection of Ridley Park
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2021Outstandingstayed OutstandingSafe: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- April 2020Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 November 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.