CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rivermere Retirement and Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found enough staff, improved use of agency staff, safe medicines systems, risk assessments and well-maintained equipment. They were assured that infection prevention arrangements were being followed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training and support, although some training delayed by the pandemic was still being rolled out. People's dietary needs were assessed, weights were monitored and health professionals were contacted when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not reviewed or rated during this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Responsive was not reviewed or rated during this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive management feedback, staff who knew people's needs and preferences, and relatives who felt listened to and kept informed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Targeted inspection found improvements in staffing, medicines and infection control; the home’s previous Good rating remained, but this visit was not rated.
The CQC made an unannounced, targeted visit on 8 and 11 January 2021. It checked specific concerns about staffing, risk management, infection control, nutrition and management, rather than carrying out a full inspection.
Inspectors spoke with 10 staff members, two people living in the home and eight relatives. They reviewed risk assessments, medicines records, staff training, rotas and infection control information.
They found improvements in staffing arrangements and medicines management. They also found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe infection control arrangements, appropriate food and drink support, and positive feedback about the care and management.
The visit was recorded as inspected but not rated. The previous overall rating was Good, published in January 2018, and the report says that rating remained Good. The CQC said it would continue to monitor information about the home.
Staffing arrangements
Staffing levels were assessed against people's needs. Regular agency staff had become part of the team, helping staff know people well.
“There were four permanent agency staff who worked as part of the staff team.” from the report
Medicines management
The electronic medicines system, audits and staff competency checks helped reduce errors and identify problems quickly. The earlier issue about dating creams and lotions had been addressed.
“People's prescribed medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Safety and infection control
Risks such as falls, choking, poor nutrition and skin breakdown were assessed. Inspectors were assured that infection control, protective equipment, testing and cleaning arrangements were in place.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Food and drink
People's dietary needs and preferences were recorded, weights were monitored and the menu offered choices. Feedback about the food was positive.
“People's dietary needs and preferences continued to be met.” from the report
Management and relationships
Relatives said staff knew people well, treated them with respect and kept them informed. The report says people and relatives felt listened to and involved.
“The staff know him very well and treat him with great respect” from the report
Training delays
minorSome staff training had been delayed because of the pandemic. The home had identified this and was rolling it out, but families should check whether all relevant training is now complete.
“Staff training that had been delayed due to the pandemic, had been identified and was being rolled out.” from the report
Recruitment was ongoing
minorThe home was still recruiting to make sure it had enough staff. Inspectors found staffing levels sufficient at the time of the visit.
“Recruitment was ongoing to ensure there were enough staff to meet people's needs and respond to their requests.” from the report
- 01Which staff training was delayed during the pandemic, and has all of it now been completed?
- 02How many permanent staff and regular agency staff currently work in the home?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient when people's needs change?
- 04How are medicines errors, missed doses or refused medicines identified and followed up?
- 05How are relatives currently kept informed and involved in their family member's care?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of specific concerns about staffing, risk management, infection control, nutrition and management; it did not assess the whole service, so the previous Good rating was not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 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 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but judged safety Requires Improvement because of agency staffing and some safeguarding and medicines processes.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 18 October 2017. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, health and safety records, complaints and quality checks.
People generally said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff on the day, safe recruitment, good training, clean and well-maintained surroundings, and appropriate support with health, food, medicines and daily life.
The main concerns were continued use of agency staff to cover vacancies, one safeguarding matter being handled first as a complaint, and topical medicines not always being dated when opened. Care plan improvements were still being completed.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were each rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, meaning the home was not consistently meeting the expected standard in that area.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff being patient, spending time with people and respecting their dignity and choices.
“Staff had developed positive relationships with people and treated them kindly.” from the report
Personalised routines
People were involved in their care plans and could choose when to receive support. Staff adapted care to individual preferences, including for people living with dementia.
“People told us that they experienced flexible and responsive care that met their needs and wishes.” from the report
Training and health support
Staff had training, supervision and opportunities to gain qualifications. People were supported to see health professionals and staff followed specialist advice.
“Staff were supported through supervision meetings and team meetings.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Management used audits, risk reviews and feedback to monitor care and plan improvements. People and staff said communication and the service had improved.
“The registered provider had ensured that effective systems were in operation to monitor the quality of care.” from the report
High agency staffing
needs fixingThere were vacancies and a high use of agency staff. Inspectors recommended continued recruitment to reduce this, as people said agency staff made it harder to build consistent relationships.
“However, high numbers of agency staff were still used in the service to cover vacancies.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
seriousOne potential safeguarding matter was investigated under the complaints process instead of being reported through the safeguarding policy. It was reported during the inspection and later found to be unsubstantiated.
“We found that one safeguarding allegation had been investigated and responded to under the complaints policy, but had not been reported appropriately following the safeguarding policy.” from the report
Topical medicines
needs fixingCreams and ointments were not dated when opened. Inspectors recommended improving records so the correct disposal date could be identified.
“Creams and ointments were not being dated when opened.” from the report
Care plans and activities still developing
minorCare planning improvements were not complete for everyone. Some people also felt there was less to do at weekends, so inspectors recommended continuing to seek feedback about activities.
“This had not yet been completed for everyone using the service.” from the report
- 01How many permanent care staff are now in post, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02What changes were made to ensure every potential safeguarding concern is reported through the correct safeguarding process?
- 03Are creams and ointments now dated when opened, and who checks their disposal dates?
- 04Have all care plans been updated with clear, personalised information and reviews of whether the care is working?
- 05What activities are now available at weekends, and how are residents’ views used to improve them?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the registered provider at this location and covered all five CQC questions, with 49 people living there at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2018 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 Rivermere Retirement and Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Rivermere Retirement and Care Home →
- January 2018GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Rivermere Retirement and Care Home →
- March 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 2017.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.