CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Riverside House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. This included visitor screening, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and arrangements for people admitted to the home.
The home followed government guidance on visiting. People and their relatives were supported to keep in touch, including through visits from essential care givers.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five key questions.
Managing COVID-19 risks
The manager had identified and assessed COVID-19 risks and had measures to reduce them for people, staff and visitors.
“The manager had identified, assessed and mitigated all COVID-19 related risks to people, staff and visitors.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
There was enough PPE, staff had extra training and inspectors saw it being used correctly.
“There was an ample supply of PPE for staff and visitors to use.” from the report
Keeping families connected
People were supported to maintain contact with relatives, including through visits from essential care givers.
“People living in the home and their relatives were supported to maintain contact.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since the inspection?
- 02How do you currently manage COVID-19 or other infection outbreaks, including testing and safe admissions?
- 03What are the current visiting arrangements for relatives and essential care givers?
- 04How do you make sure staff and visiting professionals use PPE correctly?
- 05What staffing pressures are there now, and how would these affect the care provided?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other key questions or the service overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 February 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, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited the home without announcing it on 20 and 27 August 2019. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors found the home warm, clean and well maintained, with enough staff, improved records, good food choices and a range of activities.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that the provider had made enough improvements and was no longer in breach of the regulations identified at that time.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently described staff as friendly, caring and respectful. Inspectors also saw a warm and welcoming atmosphere.
“People and relatives told us staff were kind, respectful and treated them well.” from the report
Improved care records
The home had improved its care planning. Records reflected people's individual needs, routines and preferences.
“Care records were now up to date and reflected the specific individual needs of each person.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines records were clearer and up to date. Staff giving medicines were trained, and regular checks were carried out.
“Medicines were administered by trained and competent staff. Regular audits were carried out to check this was done correctly.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose when to get up, how to spend their day and whether to join activities. The home offered group and one-to-one activities.
“There was a range of activities for people to take part in.” from the report
Strong quality checks
Managers carried out regular checks and followed up actions through a development plan. People and staff said the home had improved and was well run.
“The provider had a rigorous system of governance to check the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Some employment histories were incomplete
minorA small number of staff had not always provided their full employment history during recruitment checks. The registered manager addressed this immediately.
“A small number of staff had not always provided their full employment history.” from the report
- 01How have you maintained the improvements to care and medicines records since this inspection?
- 02What checks do you now complete to make sure every staff member provides a full employment history?
- 03How would you support my relative's particular routines, preferences and communication needs?
- 04Which activities and outings would be suitable for my relative, including one-to-one options?
- 05How are people's views and complaints recorded and followed up?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, following the home's previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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.
Every inspection of Riverside House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.