CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Riverside House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Risks were assessed and reviewed, staff recruitment checks were completed, and medicine records had no gaps or errors.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff were trained and supervised, and people were supported with food, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in care planning and supported to maintain privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and people helped develop them. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, education and complaints, but end-of-life wishes were not recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager and provider used regular audits, meetings and surveys to monitor the service and gather feedback. Inspectors found effective quality assurance systems.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with end-of-life wishes not yet recorded.
The inspection took place on 5 November 2019 and was carried out by one inspector. The inspector spoke with four people, three staff members and a health and social care professional. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found kind staff, safe recruitment, suitable training, managed risks, safe medicines support and care plans that reflected people's needs and choices.
There were two areas to improve. Records did not show what the service had learned from accidents and incidents. People's end-of-life wishes were not explored and recorded, so the inspector made a recommendation. The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in May 2017.
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people as individuals and supported their dignity, privacy and choices.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff who treated people as individuals and with dignity and respect.” from the report
People felt safe
The home had safeguarding systems, regular risk reviews and suitable staff recruitment checks.
“People told us they felt safe and systems were in place to safeguard people.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and assessed before giving medicines. Records were complete, and audits identified and acted on issues.
“Medicine administration records showed they were appropriately completed without any gaps and errors.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in their care, supported to take positive risks and helped to develop daily living skills.
“People were supported to take positive risks and to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to attend college, work towards employment, join activities and attend spiritual services.
“People were encouraged and supported to develop and maintain relationships with people that were important to them, build social networks and links with the local community.” from the report
End-of-life wishes not recorded
needs fixingThe home did not record people's wishes about end-of-life care during assessment and care planning. The inspector recommended seeking advice and guidance on this.
“Records showed the service was not recording people's end of life wishes during the initial assessment and care planning stages.” from the report
Learning from incidents
needs fixingAccident and incident records did not show what had been learned when things went wrong. The registered manager said this would be reviewed.
“Accident and incidents records did not show lessons learnt when things went wrong.” from the report
- 01How are each person's end-of-life wishes now discussed, recorded and reviewed?
- 02What changes have been made to show lessons learned from accidents and incidents?
- 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed with the person?
- 04How are staff training, supervision and medicine competency checks kept up to date?
- 05How are people's views from house meetings and surveys turned into changes?
This was a planned, announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care; the provider could not complete its information return because of technical problems. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with minor issues about surveys, garden smells and medicines guidance.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 24 April 2017. One inspector spoke with five people, reviewed five people's care and medicines records, checked four staff recruitment and training records, and looked at meetings, audits and other management records.
The home supported nine men with complex mental health needs. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and staff had suitable training. People were supported with healthcare, nutrition, independence and personal goals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspector found the home met the relevant standards at the time of this inspection. The previous concern about care plans not clearly showing how people would achieve their goals had been addressed.
People felt safe
People described feeling safe and knew to approach staff if they had a problem. Staff understood safeguarding and there had been no recent safeguarding concerns.
“I feel safe here because if I have a problem we go to the staff, having the staff here is much better.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, regular training, supervision and support linked to the needs of people living in the home.
“Staff were knowledgeable about the care they provided and had attended training to update their skills.” from the report
Personalised goals
Care plans recorded people's mental health needs, goals and progress. People were supported with work, education, activities, worship and daily living skills.
“People monitored their own progression with guidance from staff to show how they attained their goals and achievements.” from the report
Respect for choices
Staff respected people's privacy and personal space. People were supported to make decisions and their views could be heard through meetings, advocacy and accessible information.
“Staff respected people's decisions about how they wished to spend their private time.” from the report
Positive management
The manager was well regarded, worked with outside organisations and used audits and action plans to improve the home.
“Quality assurance systems identified improvements that were needed and these were acted on.” from the report
Feedback had not been reviewed
minorFour people returned feedback questionnaires, but the provider had not yet evaluated them. This could limit how fully the home learned from people's views.
“Surveys had been sent to people using the service in January 2017 and the provider had received four returned questionnaires, which contained questions about their nutrition, personal care, and the overall management of the home; however these had not yet been evaluated.” from the report
Smell in part of the garden
minorInspectors found one garden area was not free from unpleasant smells. The provider said the cause was being addressed with health professionals and cleaning was taking place.
“Areas of the home were observed to be clean, however, one area in the garden was not free from malodours and one person had raised a concern about this during the inspection.” from the report
Medicines reference information
minorA pharmacist's audit found no specific medicines concerns, but recommended that the home obtain an up-to-date British National Formulary reference book.
“had recommended that the provider purchase an up to date British National Formulary (BNF) reference book to ensure that staff had current information about medicines.” from the report
- 01How will you support my relative's specific mental health needs, relapse indicators and known risks?
- 02How do you track each person's recovery goals and show what progress they have made?
- 03What action has been taken about the unpleasant smell in the garden?
- 04How are people's survey responses now reviewed and used to improve the home?
- 05Has the up-to-date British National Formulary reference book been obtained, and how is medicines guidance kept current?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five key questions and reviewing care, medicines, staffing, training, safety and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 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 House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2010.
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 Hackney
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. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
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.