CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Riverside Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Riverside Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some care plans needed more detail for distress and anxiety.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 17 October 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed daily care and checked the building, medicines, care records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives were happy with the care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable infection control, kind staff and good support with health, food, activities and relationships.
There were some gaps in care records. Plans did not always explain clearly how staff should support people who became anxious, agitated or distressed. A few plans also contained conflicting information. The provider agreed to improve this. Good means the service was consistently managed and people's outcomes were consistently good, but it was not judged outstanding.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated warmly and with dignity. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and encouraged independence.
“We observed warm and supportive interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed, and staff were trained and checked as they managed medicines.
“Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found a continuous staff presence and enough staff to keep people safe and provide personal care in good time.
“There were enough staff on shift to keep people safe.” from the report
Good support with health and nutrition
Staff worked with health professionals and supported people to eat and drink enough. Special diets and modified food textures were catered for.
“People's nutritional and hydration needs were met. When people required a special diet, this was catered for.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities suited to their interests and were supported to maintain contact with relatives and friends.
“People were able to take part in different activities according to their interests.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail about distress
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain clearly enough how staff should recognise or respond when people became anxious, agitated or distressed. The provider agreed to update them.
“Some care plans needed to contain more information about how staff should manage risks associated with people experiencing heightened anxiety, agitation and distress as a result of their mental health needs.” from the report
Busy periods
minorStaff were more focused on tasks at busy times, such as lunch. People sometimes had to wait for support, although inspectors said this was not a persistent problem.
“There were occasions when staff were busy, so they had to wait for support, but that this was not a persistent problem.” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans to explain how staff should recognise and respond to anxiety, agitation and distress?
- 02How do you check that care plans are fully updated and do not contain conflicting information?
- 03What staffing arrangements are in place during busy periods such as lunch, and how do you prevent people waiting too long for help?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan and preferences?
- 05How do you check that medicines continue to be given safely and at the correct times?
This was an unannounced first comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; infection prevention and control measures were also checked, following a focused inspection in February 2021 that did not award an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 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 2021
Riverside Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found Good safety, effective care and leadership, with improvements since the previous provider.
This was a focused inspection after concerns about medicines, staffing and risk management. Inspectors visited on 24 and 26 February 2021, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The three areas inspected were Safe, Effective and Well-led. Each was rated Good. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines practice, good infection control, up-to-date staff training, appropriate healthcare support and effective checks on the quality of care.
The home was previously rated Requires Improvement in January 2019 under a different provider, with one breach of regulation. The report says improvements had been made and the current provider was not in breach of regulations.
The overall service was marked Inspected but not rated. This was because the inspection did not cover Caring or Responsive, and previous ratings could not be used to calculate an overall rating after the change of provider.
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were identified, reviewed and managed. Staffing levels were suitable for people's needs.
“People were safe living at Riverside Care Home and relatives told us they felt people were cared for safely.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were administered safely. Records, staff checks, training and stock audits supported this.
“Medicines were administered safely and in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Staff skills
Training was current, with refresher training planned. New staff received an induction and staff had regular supervision.
“Staff training was up to date with regular refresher training identified, tracked and planned.” from the report
Food and health support
The home offered a range of food and adapted diets where needed. People's health was monitored and weekly GP rounds took place.
“The home provided a wide variety of choice in a restaurant-style environment, where people were able to visit the dining room.” from the report
Management checks
The home had clearer handovers, regular audits and systems for tracking actions. Inspectors found the previous governance breach had been addressed.
“Robust handover arrangements had been developed and staff were clear about their involvement.” from the report
One incident was not recorded
needs fixingThe report says there had been one incident where recording and monitoring had not taken place. The provider investigated and took action, but families may want to understand what changed afterwards.
“There had been an incident where this had not taken place.” from the report
- 01What happened in the incident that was not recorded, and what changes were made afterwards?
- 02How do you review staffing levels when people's needs change?
- 03How often are medicines checked and audited, and what happens if a medicines error is found?
- 04How do you assess whether care is caring and responsive, given that these areas were not inspected in this report?
- 05How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about the person's care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the overall service was marked Inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 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 Riverside Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 January 2020.
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 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.