CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Riverside Care Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. Safeguarding and infection control procedures were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction and training, people's health needs were assessed and referrals to health professionals were made when needed. People were offered choices of food and drink.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, friendly and caring. Inspectors saw people being offered choices and supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly updated. People could take part in activities they enjoyed, and complaints were recorded and acted on.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Quality checks were completed and action was taken when problems were found. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management and support in the home.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Riverside Care Home Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 26 March 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, personalised care and effective checks on quality.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement in September 2017. Inspectors found that improvements had been made, including better capacity assessments and stronger quality monitoring.
Improved since the last inspection
The home moved from Requires Improvement to Good overall. Inspectors found that earlier problems with capacity assessments had been addressed.
“At this inspection, we found that the provider had made improvements.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff available and saw staff respond without delay to requests for help. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely.
“There were enough staff available for people and they did not have to wait for support.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were happy with the staff. Inspectors saw staff offering choices, protecting privacy and encouraging independence.
“People were treated with respect and approached in a kind caring way.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People were offered activities such as exercise, games, quizzes and trips into the community.
“People had care plans which were personalised, detailed and regularly updated.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings and surveys to check and improve care. The manager acted when issues such as medicine errors were identified.
“We saw when areas of improvement had been identified the necessary action had been taken.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have the improvements made since the September 2017 inspection been maintained?
- 02How would you support my relative if they needed end of life care, given that the home was not providing this at the time of the inspection?
- 03How would you adapt care and activities to my relative's specific needs, interests, cultural and religious preferences?
- 04How are medicine errors reviewed and prevented from happening again?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing their care plan and raising concerns?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care; the home was not providing end of life care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 2019 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, September 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but capacity checks, staff training and some care planning needed further work.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 10 July 2017. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff, the manager and a health professional. They observed care and checked five care records and the home's quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, kind staff, respect for privacy and dignity, activities, health care support and systems for checking quality.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Responsive. Some mental capacity assessments did not clearly show how decisions had been reached. New staff had not all completed moving and handling training, and information about people's needs was not always gathered or recorded properly when they moved in.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. This was an improvement from the previous inspection on 3 February 2017 in some areas, including staffing and medicines, but inspectors said further improvements were still needed.
Medicines and staffing
Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely and that there were enough staff to meet people's care and health needs. This was an improvement from the previous inspection.
“People's medicines were now managed, stored and administered safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as kind, caring and attentive. Inspectors saw staff supporting people respectfully and protecting their privacy and dignity.
“The staff were respectful, considerate and attentive to people's needs.” from the report
Activities and choice
People took part in activities based on their interests, including gardening, games, music and outings. Individual activities were also arranged for people who stayed in their rooms.
“We have group and individual activities. We look at what people like to do and organise this.” from the report
Quality checks and involvement
The home used audits, surveys and meetings to monitor care and listen to people, relatives and staff. Feedback was used to identify actions and improvements.
“Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Capacity decisions
seriousSome assessments used the same wording for different people and did not clearly explain how each person's capacity had been considered. This could make it unclear whether decisions and restrictions were properly based on the person's individual situation.
“On the ground floor, however, the capacity assessment was the same for each person and it was not clear how the decision about capacity had been reached.” from the report
Staff training
needs fixingSome new staff had not completed training to help people move safely. Staff also felt that computer-based training was not always enough, particularly for dementia care.
“Some new staff had not received training to safely help people to move.” from the report
Information when people move in
needs fixingThe information gathered when one person moved in did not initially include how they should move safely or the associated risks. Some information was gathered in a communal area rather than privately.
“However, we saw the plan did not include information about how they needed to move safely and associated risks.” from the report
Recording complaints
minorComplaints were investigated and answered, but verbal concerns were not always recorded. The manager agreed to review this.
“Where people had raised verbal concerns, these were not always recorded to demonstrate how the provider had responded.” from the report
- 01How do you now complete and record individual mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions?
- 02Have all staff completed moving and handling training, and what additional dementia training is now provided?
- 03What information is collected before and immediately after someone moves in, including their moving and handling needs and risks?
- 04How do you make sure information about a person's faith, preferences and support needs is included in their care plan?
- 05How are verbal complaints and concerns now recorded, investigated and followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five quality areas, following the previous inspection on 3 February 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 2017 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 Limited
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 May 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.