CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rivenhall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse, medicines were administered safely, and the environment and infection control arrangements were considered safe. The home relied significantly on temporary agency staff, especially at night, although inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans, and staff had relevant training and support. One person's support was more restrictive than their care plan described, and the required records and best-interests process needed updating.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to communicate, make choices and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, communication needs and goals. People were supported to maintain relationships, use community services and raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive, person-centred culture, regular audits and a focus on improvement. Inspectors found limited checks and supervision for frequently used overnight agency staff and recommended that these arrangements be reviewed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rivenhall was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with weaker oversight of overnight agency staff and one care plan needing updating.
This was the first inspection since the home registered with the CQC. One inspector visited on 8 December 2021, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness and respect, supported to make choices, and helped to live as independently as possible.
The home had safe medicines systems, detailed care plans, suitable infection control arrangements and regular checks on quality. Inspectors noted that there were not enough permanent staff and that overnight agency staff did not receive the same supervision and checks as other staff. They also found one person's support was more restrictive than their care plan recorded, although the provider addressed this after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. Their individuality, dignity and diversity were respected.
“People living at Rivenhall were treated well and each person's uniqueness and diversity was respected.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff used different communication methods to help people express their views and make everyday decisions. Care plans aimed to support independence and positive outcomes.
“People were listened to and were supported to make as many decisions as possible for themselves.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and based on what mattered to each person. Families and other important people were involved in planning.
“Each person had a detailed personalised care plan that focused on their needs, preferences and what was important to them.” from the report
Safe medicines and infection control
Medicines were administered and recorded safely. The home had updated COVID-19 risk assessments, audits, testing and suitable use of protective equipment.
“The management and administration of people's medication was safe.” from the report
Improved family communication
Families said communication and joint working had recently improved. They felt more included in their relative's support.
“People's family members told us there had been recent improvements in communication and working collaboratively.” from the report
Overnight agency staff oversight
needs fixingThe home used many temporary agency staff, particularly overnight. These staff did not receive the same supervision and support as other staff, so the manager had less oversight of overnight care.
“This meant the home manager had reduced oversight of the care and support being provided overnight.” from the report
Care plan did not match restrictive support
needs fixingOne person's support was more restrictive than their care plan described. The provider updated this with the person's family after the inspection.
“One person's support was more restrictive than what was detailed in their care plan.” from the report
Small permanent staff team
needs fixingThe home did not have a large enough staff team and relied significantly on temporary agency staff, especially at night. Inspectors still found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs safely.
“There was not a large enough staff team employed at the service; the service was making significant use of temporary agency staff, particularly at night-time.” from the report
- 01How do you now check the quality of care provided overnight by agency staff?
- 02Do overnight agency staff receive the same induction, supervision and support as permanent staff?
- 03How do you make sure each person's care plan accurately records any restrictive support?
- 04How are families involved when a person's support needs or restrictions change?
- 05What has changed since the inspection to reduce reliance on temporary agency staff at night?
This was the home's first planned inspection after registration and covered all five CQC questions, including the care provided, the premises and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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.
Every inspection of Rivenhall
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 August 2020.
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 Warrington
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. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“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.