CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Riverdale Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found problems with medicines, including medicines not always being given as prescribed and records being completed incorrectly. They also found that 21 falls had not been properly analysed to reduce future risk.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found that quality checks did not identify or manage the problems with medicines and falls effectively. Some relatives also reported poor communication, and there was no registered manager in post at the time.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe staffing and infection control, but medicines and falls management were not safe enough.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 25 May 2021. One inspector and a pharmacist inspector visited the home, and an Expert by Experience telephoned people and relatives. They looked only at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about medicines, infection control and staffing.
The home had enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safeguarding procedures and good infection control. Care records included risk assessments, and health and safety checks were carried out. However, inspectors found that some medicines were not given as prescribed, records were incorrectly completed, and incidents were not always reported promptly.
There had been 21 falls between 2 and 19 May 2021, but the home had not analysed the falls to identify patterns or reduce them. Communication with some relatives was also poor, and the management and checking systems were not strong enough. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Staffing
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks had also been completed before staff started work.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Infection control
The home had infection control training, suitable protective equipment and processes linked to COVID-19. Inspectors observed staff using protective equipment safely.
“The provider was taking appropriate measures to prevent people and staff catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Safeguarding
The home had safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. Staff knew how to report concerns, and records showed concerns had been sent to the relevant authorities.
“There were safeguarding adults and whistle blowing procedures in place.” from the report
Working with other services
The home worked with health and social care professionals and contacted them when people had health needs that required support.
“The service worked in partnership with key organisations including the local authorities that commissioned the service and other health and social care professionals” from the report
Medicines
seriousInspectors could not be sure that people received their medicines as prescribed. They found missed time-sensitive medicines, medicines on the floor and inaccurate records.
“We could not be assured that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Falls
seriousThe home recorded 21 falls over part of May, but did not analyse them for trends or use the information to reduce the number of falls.
“There was no further analysis undertaken to identify any trends and to reduce the number of falls at the service.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingSome relatives said the home did not keep them informed and that calls were not always answered. Some relatives also could not attend meetings or obtain the minutes.
“They are really poor at communicating. They only phone if something is wrong” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingThe home did not have a registered manager in post, although the current manager had applied to register. Inspectors found that the home's checking systems were not strong enough to identify and manage important risks.
“The current systems in place were not robust enough to assess the quality and safety of the service effectively.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to make sure medicines are given at the correct time and recorded only after they have been taken?
- 02How are you analysing falls now, and what specific changes have been made to reduce them?
- 03How quickly will relatives be told about falls, changes in health and important appointments or vaccinations?
- 04Has the manager's application to become the registered manager been completed?
- 05Can relatives who cannot attend meetings receive the minutes or written updates?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 August 2021 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, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control measures, but this was a targeted inspection.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection after concerns were received about infection control and prevention. The report lists the inspection visit as 13 November 2020, while the detailed section says it took place on 12 November 2020.
Inspectors found suitable measures for visitors, cleaning, protective equipment, testing, social distancing and shielding. People who tested positive for COVID-19 were supported to isolate in their room or another suitable area.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. Safe was also inspected but not rated. The other four areas were not covered by this inspection.
Visitor precautions
Visitors completed a health declaration, wore suitable protective equipment and used an antibacterial mat for their shoes.
“All visitors to the service were asked to complete a health declaration, wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) such as a face covering and wipe their shoes on an antibacterial mat.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home visibly clean and saw staff using suitable cleaning materials.
“The service was visibly clean, and staff used appropriate cleaning materials.” from the report
COVID-19 risk controls
The home had assessed COVID-19 risks, used PPE and supported people who tested positive to isolate.
“Risks relating to COVID-19 had been fully assessed and action taken to mitigate them where possible.” from the report
Infection-control systems
Inspectors were assured about testing, PPE, social distancing, admissions and the infection-control policy.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not explain what specific changes were needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes, if any, were made after inspectors signposted resources to develop the infection-control approach?
- 02What are the current rules for visitors, including health declarations, face coverings and other protective equipment?
- 03How are people who test positive for COVID-19 isolated and supported now?
- 04How are residents and staff currently accessing COVID-19 testing?
- 05How does the home keep its infection prevention and control policy up to date?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 2021 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 Court
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- August 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 March 2011.
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 Bexley
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 £1,250 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.