CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rivermede Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received medicines safely from trained staff, risks were assessed and reviewed, and infection control was effective. Inspectors found that some medicine administration instructions were not sufficiently detailed, and the manager submitted an action plan afterwards.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, an open management culture and good involvement of people, relatives and staff. Feedback was acted on and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rivermede Court rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, but some medicine instructions were not detailed enough.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 30 November 2023. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about safe care. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found trained staff gave medicines safely, risks were assessed, the home was clean, and infection control was good. People were supported to make choices and staff responded promptly to call bells.
Some instructions for certain medicines were not detailed enough. The manager provided an action plan after the inspection, developed with the GP. Inspectors found no evidence that the concern that led to the inspection had put people at risk of harm.
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were given by trained and competent staff, and people received them at the right time.
“People were administered their medicines safely by trained and competent staff.” from the report
Risk management
Care plans gave staff clear guidance about moving people safely and managing health risks such as diabetes.
“Risks were managed safely and people and family members were involved in assessment of risk.” from the report
Choice and involvement
Staff asked for consent, respected people's independence and involved them in decisions about daily life.
“We observed staff frequently asking for consent before supporting people whilst respecting their autonomy.” from the report
Open leadership
People, relatives and staff said managers were approachable. The home used meetings, feedback and audits to identify and make improvements.
“The registered manager promoted a positive and inclusive culture.” from the report
Medicine instructions
needs fixingInstructions for some medicines were not detailed enough. The manager submitted an action plan after the inspection, in consultation with the GP.
“certain medicine administration instructions were not sufficiently detailed.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the action plan about medicine administration instructions?
- 02How are medicine instructions now checked with the GP and staff?
- 03What did the review of staff deployment find, and have staffing arrangements changed?
- 04What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas be inspected again?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns and receive feedback about any changes to care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carry over from the previous inspection published on 15 June 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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, June 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with past medicine errors being monitored.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. It was unannounced and took place on 20 May 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, trained staff, safe medicine systems, personalised care and a friendly atmosphere.
The inspection was partly prompted by concerns about medicines, unwitnessed falls and mental capacity assessments. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. The home had introduced a digital medicine system after errors in the past.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke warmly about the care. Inspectors saw staff supporting people with compassion, dignity and respect.
“People were supported by caring staff who were compassionate and respectful to people's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Detailed risk planning
The home identified individual risks and reviewed care plans regularly. Staff had clear guidance about how to keep people safe.
“There were in depth risk assessments to ensure action was taken to reduce potential harm.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to follow their interests and take part in a wide range of activities. Staff also worked with families to understand personal preferences.
“People were supported to take part in a range of activities.” from the report
Good involvement
People and relatives were involved in decisions about care, activities and menus. Staff were also encouraged to share ideas.
“People were involved with decisions made in the home such as putting ideas forward for activities that met their preferences and helping to design the menu.” from the report
Medicine errors in the past
minorThe report says there had previously been medicine errors, although no major impact on people was recorded. The home had introduced a digital alert system to identify medicines given incorrectly or late.
“There had been medicine errors made in the past, however, no major impact on people had been noted.” from the report
- 01What medicine errors have happened since the inspection, and how are they reviewed now?
- 02How will staffing levels and supervision be maintained as occupancy increases from the 23 people living there at inspection?
- 03Has the manager completed registration with CQC, and how has the management team changed since the inspection?
- 04How are falls and other accidents reviewed, and what changes are made to prevent them happening again?
- 05How will activities and care remain personalised for people living with dementia?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 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 Rivermede Court
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2021GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 October 2019.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.