CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at River View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had enough staff support, staff understood their risks, and medicines were received, stored and administered safely. Inspectors found some gaps in medicine and incident records, and the manager agreed to improve the audit process.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Support, training, health care and transitions were generally effective. However, records for one person did not show that best-interest decisions and restrictions had been reviewed properly.
- Caring?
- Good
- No separate Caring rating was given in this inspection report. Inspectors observed positive engagement between residents and staff, and described the care as person-centred.
- Responsive?
- Good
- No separate Responsive rating was given in this inspection report. The report says the home supported people to access the community and maintain relationships, but relatives gave mixed feedback about communication.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had clear oversight and staff described the management team as available and supportive. Audit systems needed strengthening so that records and risks were checked more consistently.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, person-centred support, but the Effective rating requires improvement because some best-interest decisions and records were not complete.
This was an unannounced inspection. The inspector visited the home, observed staff and residents, spoke with residents, staff, relatives and a professional, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, training and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were rated Good. Residents had enough staff support, including to use the community, and staff understood their needs. Medicines were generally handled safely, and care was described as person-centred.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Records for one person did not show that decisions or restrictions made in their best interests had been reviewed properly. The report also found that audits did not always identify problems with medicine and incident records.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as the previous rating published in 2018. The CQC made recommendations about following the Mental Capacity Act and strengthening audits.
Enough staff support
There were sufficient staff to support residents safely, including with community activities. Staff were trained and understood residents' needs.
“People received flexible support and there were sufficient numbers of staff available.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were generally received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff handling medicines had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care records reflected residents' goals and outcomes, and staff supported people with communication, daily living skills and activities.
“Right Care: Care and support was person centred, and records reflected people's goals and outcomes.” from the report
Supportive staff and leadership
Residents appeared happy with staff. Staff said they felt supported by the manager and had relevant training and regular supervision.
“People and staff described the management team as always available and supportive.” from the report
Best-interest decisions
needs fixingFor one person, records did not show that decisions or restrictions made in their best interests had been reviewed properly or that the right people had been involved.
“Records for one person did not evidence that any decisions/restrictions made in their best interests had been reviewed in line with the MCA and the appropriate individuals had been involved.” from the report
Audits did not always find problems
needs fixingAudits missed a medicine record gap and other discrepancies found by inspectors. Incident records did not always show how risks were reduced or lessons learned.
“We discussed some differences in audits to our findings around a small number of medicine records and incident records” from the report
Mixed communication feedback
minorRelatives gave mixed feedback about communication. The manager said action would be taken.
“We received mixed feedback from relatives about communication.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure best-interest decisions and restrictions are reviewed and recorded properly?
- 02How do you now check medicine administration records and make sure any gaps are found quickly?
- 03How are incidents, including incidents involving behaviour, recorded and reviewed so that risks are reduced and lessons are learned?
- 04How will you involve residents and their representatives consistently when agreeing care goals and outcomes?
- 05What action have you taken to improve communication with relatives?
This inspection covered Safe, Effective and Well-led; no separate ratings were given for Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 December 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, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with two minor medicines recording issues corrected straight away.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 June 2018. One inspector spoke with relatives, staff and professionals, observed support, and checked care records, staff files and management records.
The home supports up to three people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training and detailed care plans. People were supported with health appointments, meals, activities, college, work placements and community life.
The home remained Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture and no serious risks or concerns.
There were two minor omissions in medicines records, which the manager corrected immediately. Staff supervision had not always been consistent in 2017, but inspectors found this was regular and planned from the start of 2018.
Stable staffing
Recruitment had led to a more stable staff team. Inspectors saw enough staff to respond promptly and support activities.
“There was now a more stable staff team following recruitment and we saw that people were supported by a consistent staff team.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's wishes, needs, health, choices and independence goals. Staff used these plans when providing support.
“There were detailed, person-centred care plans in place, so that staff had information on how to support people.” from the report
Community involvement
People took part in activities they chose, including college, fitness, gardening, social activities and work placements. They were also supported to develop employment skills.
“People were supported to play an active role in their local community, which supported and empowered their independence.” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors saw staff protecting people's dignity and using an individual's pictorial communication system.
“We observed staff and people who used the service interacting and saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Positive management
Staff, relatives and professionals gave positive feedback. The home had regular quality checks and a person-centred culture.
“Comments from people, relatives, staff and other professionals indicated there was a positive, person centred culture within the service.” from the report
Medicine records
minorInspectors found two minor omissions in medicine administration records. The manager sent evidence that corrective action had been completed immediately after the inspection.
“We saw two minor omissions in relation to medicine administration records.” from the report
Earlier staff supervision
minorStaff supervision meetings were not consistent during 2017 because of management changes. Inspectors found that supervision was well established by the time of this inspection.
“We saw during 2017 that supervision meetings had not been consistent as there were management changes within the home.” from the report
Sexuality support plans
minorThe support plans did not explain how people's preferences could be respected when helping them understand their own sexuality.
“Support plans did not detail how people's preferences could be upheld in terms of supporting people to acquire and develop an understanding about their own sexuality.” from the report
- 01How are medicines records checked now, following the two minor omissions found at the inspection?
- 02How often does each staff member receive supervision, and how is this recorded?
- 03How will the home support my relative's preferences and understanding around sexuality?
- 04How are my relative's care plans reviewed, and how are their choices included?
- 05What activities, education or work opportunities could my relative take part in?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service, covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 July 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 River View
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 May 2012.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in 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.