CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rivermead View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe medicines management, enough staff, suitable recruitment checks and effective systems for safeguarding and managing risks. They recommended advice be sought about expiry timeframes for creams and lotions because opening dates were not recorded.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, people's health and nutrition needs were monitored, and the home worked with health professionals. Inspectors found that food and fluid charts were being used for everyone, including people who did not need this level of monitoring.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating for Caring in this inspection. People and relatives were positive about the care, and staff had built caring relationships with people.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating for Responsive in this inspection. Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and routines, and people were supported to take part in activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an experienced management team, regular audits and clear systems for monitoring quality and safety. People, relatives and staff were asked for feedback, and the service worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with minor record-keeping issues about creams and food monitoring.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 04 August 2022. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable recruitment checks, effective infection control and good arrangements for managing risks.
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff knew people's needs and preferences, involved people and relatives in care planning, and worked with health professionals. The home had systems for checking quality and making improvements.
Inspectors identified two minor issues. Opening dates were not recorded on external creams and lotions. Everyone had been placed on food and fluid charts, even when there was no identified need. The provider agreed to address these points.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The home had reduced its use of agency staff and aimed to provide support from staff people knew.
“Rotas confirmed that sufficient staff were on duty at all times to meet people's current needs.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely. Staff had training and regular checks of their medicines practice.
“Medicines were managed safely to ensure people received them in accordance with their health needs and the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
Positive relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff knew people's individual needs and respected their preferences, including preferences about personal care.
“Management and staff were committed to their roles and had built positive and caring relationships with people.” from the report
Good management oversight
The management team used audits, meetings and reviews to monitor care and identify improvements. Staff said they felt supported and listened to.
“The service had clear and effective governance systems in place.” from the report
Good links with health professionals
Staff contacted health professionals when needed and acted on their advice. Records showed that referrals were made promptly and appropriately.
“A visiting general practitioner told us staff were proactive in making timely referrals when they had concerns around people's health and well-being.” from the report
Cream opening dates not recorded
minorOpening dates were not recorded on external creams and lotions. This made it harder for staff to check that they remained in date and safe to use.
“However, the dates of opening the creams were not recorded.” from the report
Food and fluid charts used too widely
minorEveryone had been placed on a food and fluid chart, including people without an identified need for this monitoring. The provider agreed that charts should only be used when needed.
“Every person had been placed on a food and fluid chart, even when the person did not have an identified need for monitoring this area of care.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the date that each external cream or lotion is opened?
- 02How do you decide which people need food and fluid charts, and has this been reviewed since the inspection?
- 03How are bedroom choices and room allocations managed for people who find the stairs difficult, given that the building has no lift?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough familiar staff when there are absences?
- 05How are people's care plans and risk assessments reviewed when their health needs change?
This inspection rated Safe, Effective and Well-led; the report does not give ratings for Caring or Responsive, and the two earlier focused infection-control inspections were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 September 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.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rivermead View was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and staffing arrangements during a COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors visited the home on 10 February 2022. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. They looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures.
Inspectors found the home was managing the outbreak, staffing shortages and visits in line with current guidance. They saw staff respond promptly and sensitively when people asked for help.
The home had cleaning arrangements, personal protective equipment and regular COVID-19 testing. The overall service and safe ratings were marked “Inspected but not rated”, so this report does not provide a full quality rating.
Staffing managed during outbreak
The management team monitored staffing closely. Absences linked to COVID-19 had not affected staffing levels or the quality of support people received.
“Daily oversight and careful management of staffing levels had meant staff shortages had been managed effectively.” from the report
Prompt support
Inspectors saw people ask staff for help without hesitation. Staff responded promptly and sensitively.
“We observed people asking staff for support without hesitation and staff responded promptly and sensitively.” from the report
Infection control
The home used extra cleaning arrangements, PPE and regular COVID-19 testing. Inspectors were assured that the home could prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
“Additional cleaning protocols were in place to ensure all high touch points were regularly sanitised.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing levels being managed now, and how would you cover staff absences?
- 02What visiting arrangements apply if there is a COVID-19 outbreak?
- 03How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and how do you check that this is done?
- 04What PPE and COVID-19 testing arrangements are currently in place for staff, visitors and residents?
- 05Can you show me the latest full CQC ratings for the home, since this inspection was targeted and not rated?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was not a full inspection of all five questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 March 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 Rivermead View
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 2016.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.