CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Riverdale Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and monitored, safeguarding systems were in place, medicines were given as prescribed and infection control arrangements were effective. One applicant's full employment history was initially missing, but this was corrected after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found stable management, effective audits and clearer oversight of safety and care quality. People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the leadership and culture.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Riverdale Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found safer care and stronger management, with one recruitment record shortfall corrected after the inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 14 February 2023. One inspector reviewed information from the service and local authority, spoke with people, five relatives, seven staff and three healthcare professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The inspection looked only at Safe and Well-led. Both were rated Good. Inspectors found better risk assessments, safer medicines systems, improved safeguarding records, more permanent staff and stronger checks on the quality of care.
The home had been rated Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, with breaches of regulations 12 and 17. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made, so the home was no longer in breach. The other three key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Improved risk management
Care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed, with clearer guidance for staff. The home also used incident analysis to identify trends and needed improvements.
“Risks to people's safety were assessed and monitored.” from the report
Stable staff team
More permanent staff had been recruited and the home was reducing its use of agency workers. Relatives and staff described the team as more stable and organised.
“People were generally supported by a consistent staff team who understood how they liked to be supported.” from the report
Medicines checks
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. An electronic system alerted managers to delays or errors, and regular audits checked records.
“People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
One incomplete recruitment record
minorInspectors found that one applicant did not have a full employment history recorded. The provider supplied evidence after the inspection that the correct information had been added.
“However, we found 1 applicant did not have a full employment history documented.” from the report
- 01How are risks in each resident's care plan reviewed and updated now?
- 02How are medicines delays, errors and records checked, and what happens if a problem is found?
- 03How many agency staff are currently being used, and how do you maintain a consistent team?
- 04How do you check that recruitment records, including full employment histories, are complete before staff start?
- 05What changes have come from the latest feedback and the 'You said and We did' action plan?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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, June 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks and service oversight were not managed consistently, although staffing and management had improved.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 27 April 2022. One inspector reviewed Safe and Well-led, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and checked records and infection control.
The home did not always manage risks to people's health and safety well. Some risk assessments lacked detail, some incidents were missing or recorded inaccurately, and information about a person's pain was not acted on promptly.
The home had also gone through management changes and safeguarding concerns had increased. A new registered manager was in post, staff morale had improved and more permanent staff had been recruited. However, the provider's checks had not reliably identified problems in records, incident management or personalised care planning.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in September 2019, to Requires Improvement. The other three key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection because they were not reviewed this time.
More consistent staffing
The home recruited more permanent staff and reduced its reliance on agency workers. Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs and recruitment checks had been completed.
“This had enabled the provider to reduce the number of agency workers in the service and ensured people were supported by a more consistent staff team.” from the report
Medicines
People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and the electronic recording system alerted staff to administration errors.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff had completed medicines training and understood how to support people safely.” from the report
Improved management culture
People, relatives and staff described improvements since the new registered manager started. Staff said management was approachable and they could raise concerns.
“Staff told us the management of the service were open and approachable and they felt able to raise any concerns.” from the report
Risk assessments
seriousSome people who became upset or distressed did not have detailed risk assessments explaining how staff should reduce risks to them or others.
“Risks to people's safety were not always managed effectively.” from the report
Incident records and follow-up
seriousSome incidents were not recorded, while other reports were incomplete or inaccurate. This made it unclear whether the right action had been taken to prevent a repeat.
“Staff had not always documented incidents appropriately. For example, there were no records of some incidents which had taken place and for others the incident reports contained incomplete or inaccurate information.” from the report
Provider oversight
seriousThe provider's audits and management checks did not consistently identify problems with care records, risk assessments or incident reports.
“The provider did not have robust processes in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Personalised care records
needs fixingCare plans did not always record people's preferences or show how they had been involved in decisions about their care.
“People's care plans did not always demonstrate how the provider was ensuring care was personalised.” from the report
- 01How have you updated residents' risk assessments, especially for people who may become distressed or upset?
- 02How do you check that every incident is recorded accurately and that lessons are acted on?
- 03How do staff make sure reports of pain or other changes in health are passed on and acted on promptly?
- 04What evidence can you show that the new management checks are now finding and correcting record-keeping problems?
- 05How are residents' personal preferences and involvement in care decisions recorded in their care plans?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 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 Riverdale Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 September 2018.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.