CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Riseley House Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, May 2024
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found people at risk from unsafe care, weak oversight and incomplete records.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Inadequate overall. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate. Effective, caring and responsive were rated Requires Improvement.
Inspectors found risks were not always assessed or updated after falls and accidents. Some safety equipment did not work, medicines were not always managed safely, and cleaning standards were poor. Care records and management checks were incomplete or ineffective.
People and relatives generally spoke positively about staff and the care they received. However, activities were limited, people were not consistently involved in care planning, and the provider had not completed actions promised after the previous inspection.
Kind staff
People and relatives generally spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff speaking respectfully and responding sensitively when someone was distressed.
“Staff were considered and caring in their approach.” from the report
Staffing levels
Inspectors found staffing levels had improved and were suitable for people's caring needs. The home was no longer in breach of the staffing regulation.
“Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people's caring needs.” from the report
Healthcare links
The home worked with the local hospital and health professionals. People could access healthcare, and staff said the GP surgery visited regularly.
“Staff from the GP surgery visited regularly, and good relationships had been built between the surgery and the home.” from the report
Family contact
Relatives and friends could visit whenever they wanted. Inspectors saw regular visits during the inspection.
“People were supported to maintain contact with friends and relatives.” from the report
People at risk after falls
seriousCare plans and risk assessments were not always updated after accidents or falls. The home could not show that repeated falls were properly analysed or that lessons had been learned.
“Care plans were not always updated following accidents or falls to mitigate further risks to people.” from the report
Broken safety equipment
seriousSome motion sensors and alert buttons used to call for help did not work. The provider had been aware of the problem but had not put it right before the inspection.
“We found a number of motion sensors and alert buttons people used to alert staff they required support were inoperative.” from the report
Unsafe medicines management
seriousA controlled drug was found in an unlocked cupboard and had not been accounted for. Records for prescribed creams had gaps, and risks from flammable creams had not initially been assessed.
“During our checks on medicines we found a controlled drug in an unlocked cupboard which had not been accounted for as missing.” from the report
Poor management oversight
seriousAudits and routine checks did not identify or resolve risks to people, the building and care records. Promised improvements from the previous inspection had not been completed.
“Governance systems remained ineffective.” from the report
Few activities
needs fixingThere was no planned activities programme and people reported having little to keep them occupied. The provider said it was recruiting an activities coordinator.
“People informed us there was little to keep them occupied.” from the report
Limited involvement in care
needs fixingPeople and relatives were not consistently involved in care planning or asked how they wanted their care delivered.
“People and their relatives were not involved in care planning.” from the report
- 01Which motion sensors and alert buttons were not working, and can you show that all safety equipment is now checked and working?
- 02How are falls and accidents now analysed, and how do you make sure care plans are updated afterwards?
- 03What changes have been made to medicines storage, controlled drug checks and records for prescribed creams?
- 04What planned activities are now available, and how are people's interests and preferences used to decide them?
- 05How are people and relatives now involved in care planning and regular reviews?
This was an unannounced inspection prompted partly by concerns about safe care and treatment; inspectors assessed all five key questions and also checked infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 2024 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, September 2023
Rated Requires Improvement overall, with Inadequate leadership and risks around staffing, safety checks and care planning.
This was the home’s first CQC inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 26 and 27 July 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care records, staff files, medicines records and management records.
Inspectors found shortfalls in all five areas. Staffing was not always enough, safety checks and equipment servicing were not reliable, and care records did not always explain people’s needs or risks. The home was also not consistently following the Mental Capacity Act.
People and relatives generally said staff were kind and that people were safe and cared for. The home worked with hospitals and other professionals to support rehabilitation and people returning home. However, activities and emotional support were limited, and leadership and quality monitoring were Inadequate.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means CQC found that some aspects of care were not safe, effective, caring or responsive, and that there was limited assurance about safety. CQC required the provider to make improvements and said it would monitor progress.
Kind and respectful interactions
People and relatives generally said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw people looking comfortable and observed respectful conversations.
“During the inspection, we observed people looked comfortable with the support given to them.” from the report
Rehabilitation partnerships
The home worked with the local hospital and health professionals to support rehabilitation and help some people return home.
“The provider worked with other agencies for positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The recruitment process included checks intended to make sure suitable staff were employed, including agency workers.
“Recruitment processes were robust. Checks were carried out to ensure suitable staff were employed.” from the report
Infection prevention
Inspectors were assured that infection risks, personal protective equipment and possible outbreaks were being managed.
“We were assured the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousThere were not always enough staff to provide safe care, complete hygiene tasks and carry out safety checks. During one incident, the inspector had to find care staff because a person faced an immediate risk of harm.
“The provider did not provide adequate staffing levels to ensure care, good hygiene and checks were completed in a safe and effective way.” from the report
Safety monitoring
seriousEquipment servicing, emergency planning, health and safety checks and learning from falls were not reliable. The fire service enforcement action had not been completed within the original timescale.
“Systems were not robust enough to demonstrate people were supported safely and that risk was managed, placing people at risk of harm.” from the report
Weak leadership and oversight
seriousThe provider’s audits and checks failed to identify important problems. Records and systems did not show that risks, staffing, training and care quality were being properly monitored.
“Governance systems were inadequate. There was a provider led governance system in the service which consisted of a number of audits and routine checks.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act processes
seriousRecords did not always show that decisions about locked doors and CCTV had the required legal authorisation or best-interests process.
“The provider was not always working within the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Limited activities and personal support
needs fixingPeople had limited opportunities for activities, stimulation and emotional support. Care records and daily notes were task-focused and did not consistently show how people’s personal preferences or emotional needs were met.
“We observed people sat in the lounge area or in bed disengaged, with limited offer of stimulation throughout the day.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to increase staffing levels, especially at busy times and when agency staff are used?
- 02What progress has been made on the fire service enforcement notice, emergency plan and routine safety checks?
- 03Has all moving and handling equipment been serviced and are records now up to date?
- 04How are Mental Capacity Act and best-interests decisions, including locked doors and CCTV, now recorded and reviewed?
- 05What regular activities and personalised support are now available for people, including those living with dementia?
This was the first comprehensive, unannounced inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 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.
Every inspection of Riseley House Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- May 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2023Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 October 2022.
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 Cheshire East
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.