CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Riverlee Residential and Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but medicines, risk checks and oversight were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 April 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and the home's quality checks.
People were generally treated kindly and with dignity. Care plans were personalised, staff had the training needed for their roles, and people were supported with food, activities and healthcare. There were enough staff, and people and relatives said they felt safe.
However, medicines were not always given or recorded safely. Some risks were not fully assessed or explained for staff, including risks linked to catheter care, seizures and going missing. The home's checks did not reliably find these problems.
The overall rating changed from Good in 2018 to Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, meaning there was limited assurance about safety and the home's management systems needed improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that staff promoted dignity, privacy and independence.
“People and relatives also told us staff were kind and caring and positive relationships had developed between them.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The provider said it did not use agency staff and had additional staff to cover absences.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's health conditions, preferences and support needs. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“People's care plans were person-centred and provided staff with guidance on how their needs should be met.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People could take part in activities, outings and one-to-one sessions. This included support for people cared for in bed.
“There were two activity coordinators and the service offered a range of activities to support people's need for social interaction and stimulation such as quizzes, sing alongs, arts and crafts and movie afternoons.” from the report
Medicine errors and missing checks
seriousInspectors saw a medicine administered incorrectly and found delays, inaccurate records and missing fridge temperature checks. They could not be assured that people always received medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines were not always managed safely, therefore we could not be assured that people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Risk information was incomplete
seriousSome care records did not give staff enough guidance about risks, including catheter care and seizures. Checks for one person's required hourly observations were not recorded.
“Risks to people's health and safety were not always assessed or guidance available to reduce possible risks and maintain people's safety.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's audits and monitoring systems did not identify several medicines and risk problems found by inspectors. This led to a breach of the good governance regulation.
“The provider failed to ensure their quality monitoring systems were robust at identifying shortfalls in relation to some aspects of people's care as identified during this inspection.” from the report
Some areas needed maintenance
needs fixingInspectors found problems including damaged or missing bathroom locks, a lifting floor covering, stained equipment and clutter. Some issues were fixed or being addressed during the inspection, but further maintenance and decluttering were recommended.
“Some areas, such as shower rooms needed refurbishment.” from the report
- 01What has been done to prevent medicines being given late or incorrectly, and how are medicine records now checked?
- 02How will staff be given clear guidance about catheter care, seizures, diabetes and the risk of going missing?
- 03How are hourly observations and other safety checks recorded and reviewed?
- 04What improvements have been made to the premises, including bathroom locks, shower rooms, equipment and clutter?
- 05Can we see the action plan following the CQC breaches, and how will you show that the improvements are being sustained?
This unannounced inspection looked at all five CQC questions, including care, medicines, records, staffing, premises, infection control and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 August 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, May 2021
Riverlee Residential and Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 31 March 2021. It looked at how the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors found suitable stocks of personal protective equipment, safe visitor procedures and arrangements for screening visitors. Staff followed infection control guidance and had received relevant training.
People and staff were regularly tested. Inspectors also found safe admission procedures, health and safety checks, and plans to prevent or manage outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. Only infection prevention and control was assessed, so this report does not give ratings for the quality of care in other areas.
PPE supplies and use
The home had enough suitable PPE and staff followed national guidance when using it.
“The provider maintained sufficient stock of suitable personal protective equipment (PPE) for staff to use whilst working at the home.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened for COVID-19, given suitable PPE and expected to follow infection control procedures.
“These included screening visitors for COVID-19, providing them with appropriate PPE, and following safe infection control practices.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
People and staff were tested regularly, and the provider had arrangements to manage possible outbreaks.
“People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home had procedures for admitting people safely during the pandemic and staff understood how to apply infection control measures.
“There were procedures in place to ensure people were safely admitted to the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and what PPE must they use?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 03What happens if there is a suspected infection outbreak?
- 04How do you safely admit new residents and manage infection risks during admissions?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not rate the other areas of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 May 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 Riverlee Residential and Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Riverlee Residential and Nursing Home →
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Riverlee Residential and Nursing Home →
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Greenwich
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. 87 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.