CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rivacre House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, testing, protective equipment, visitors, admissions, hygiene and outbreak management. The provider also had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and measures to manage an outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection on 03 February 2022. It was announced one day beforehand and focused on infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, as well as staffing pressures.
Inspectors found that the home had measures to reduce the risks from COVID-19. They were assured about visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing, hygiene, admissions and managing outbreaks.
The home was supporting visits in designated areas. An independent infection control audit in December 2021 found high standards of hygiene and infection prevention. Any actions from that audit had been dealt with promptly.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection checked infection control arrangements, but it did not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas.
Safe visiting
The home provided designated areas for visits from friends and relatives while protecting people's rights.
“The provider facilitated visits for people from friends and relatives in designated areas which enabled peoples' human rights to be upheld.” from the report
COVID-19 procedures
The home had clear procedures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 entering and spreading through the service.
“Clear procedures were in place to minimise the risk of COVID19 being introduced and spreading through the service.” from the report
Infection control
An independent audit in December 2021 found high standards of hygiene and infection prevention.
“The last independent infection control audit had been completed in December 2021 and found high standards of hygiene and infection prevention had been achieved.” from the report
Prompt action
The home had acted promptly where the infection control audit identified actions.
“Where actions had been identified, these had been promptly addressed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing visits, and are visits still held in designated areas?
- 02What arrangements are in place for COVID-19 testing, protective equipment and managing any new outbreak?
- 03How are staffing pressures affecting care and support at the home?
- 04What actions were identified in the December 2021 infection control audit, and have they all stayed completed?
- 05How do you check that visiting professionals meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirements or have an exemption?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures during a COVID-19 outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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 2018
Rivacre House was rated Good overall, with Outstanding personalised support, although some medication errors had been reported since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited without notice on 23 January 2018 and returned on 26 January. They looked at care plans, staff files, training, medicines, safety records and quality checks. They observed care and spoke with four people, staff and managers.
The home supported up to 12 people with mental health needs. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff were trained and there were enough staff. The building was clean and well maintained. Medicines were managed safely during the inspection, although some low-level safeguarding concerns about medication errors had been reported since the previous visit.
People were treated with respect and were involved in their support plans. Inspectors found particularly strong personalised support, including help with independence, activities, personal goals and lifestyle choices. All five ratings stayed the same as at the October 2015 inspection.
Personalised support
People had a significant say in their support plans, which focused on their own needs, goals and pace.
“People had a significant influence on their support plans.” from the report
Promoting independence
The home supported people to build skills for more independent living, including cooking, managing medicines and taking part in activities.
“The ethos of the service was one of promoting independence with a view to people moving to more independent living in the future.” from the report
Respect and dignity
People said staff listened to them, respected their privacy and helped them make their own choices.
“People told us that they felt cared for by the staff team.” from the report
Choice and inclusion
People could choose activities, meals and lifestyle options. The home also supported people to connect with community groups.
“The registered provider understood and recognised people's diversity and responded accordingly.” from the report
Good leadership
People and staff felt involved in running the home. Regular meetings, surveys and audits were used to gather views and check quality.
“The registered manager had fostered a transparent and open culture within the service.” from the report
Medication errors
needs fixingSome low-level safeguarding concerns about medication errors had been reported since the previous inspection. The home had an action plan intended to prevent these happening again.
“Some low level safeguarding had been reported in respect of medication errors since our last visit but there was a clear plan of action in place to ensure that these did not reoccur.” from the report
- 01What medication errors have happened since the inspection, and what action was taken to prevent them happening again?
- 02How would you involve my relative in writing and reviewing their support plan?
- 03How would you help my relative build independence with medicines, cooking, money or daily living?
- 04How would you support my relative's mental health, preferred lifestyle and links with community groups?
- 05How are people's views from meetings, surveys and complaints used to make changes?
This was an inspection of all five key questions and included the premises and care provided; all ratings carried over as Good or Outstanding from the October 2015 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 2018 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 Rivacre House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2010.
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
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
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. 76 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.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.