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
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, risk management, equipment and infection control were assessed as safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received personalised support that reflected their needs and preferences. They were supported with communication, relationships, activities, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive and open leadership, regular checks on quality and good working relationships with professionals. The provider was reviewing its governance arrangements and capacity to make improvements promptly.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Riverside House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and clear improvement since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 11 and 12 January 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care and checked care, incident and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines, staffing, risk management and infection control were handled safely. People had personalised support, meaningful activities and help to keep in touch with family and the community.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with a breach about person-centred care. The provider had made enough improvement and was no longer in breach. The inspection did not cover Effective or Caring, so the overall rating used ratings from the previous inspection for those areas.
Safer medicines
Medicines were reviewed, stored and recorded properly. Staff were trained and their competence was checked, and best-practice guidance on reducing unnecessary medicines had been followed.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) and were clear, complete and easy to follow.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff clear information about each person's needs. People and relatives were involved in planning, and staffing was increased when someone needed extra support.
“People and their relatives, (where appropriate), were involved in planning and reviewing their care.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could use their own space and communal areas as they wished. Activities reflected individual interests and included community trips, groups, courses and visits.
“Each person had a personalised activity plan, these were kept under review and changes made to ensure they remained meaningful to the person.” from the report
Positive relationships
Inspectors saw people interacting confidently with staff and being treated with kindness and respect. Relatives and professionals generally gave positive feedback about communication and partnership working.
“People lived in an inclusive and caring environment where they were valued and relationships were based on mutual respect and kindness.” from the report
Some relatives lacked complaint information
needs fixingThree of the six relatives spoken with did not know how to make a complaint. Easy-read information was available, but families should check they know how to raise and escalate concerns.
“While 3 of the 6 relatives we spoke with said they did not know how to make a complaint, 5 out of 6 said they would call the service with any concerns.” from the report
Governance capacity was being reviewed
minorThe provider recognised that its capacity to support services and improve monitoring systems was limited. It was reviewing governance arrangements to make sure improvements could be made promptly.
“The provider recognised their capacity to support their services to improve, while simultaneously improving their monitoring systems, was limited.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, including any use of easy-read information, signs, objects or pictorial cards?
- 02How do you decide when a person needs extra one-to-one support, and how do you review whether that support is still needed?
- 03What activities could you offer that match my relative's interests, preferences and sensory or mobility needs?
- 04How can my relative and our family make a complaint, and who should we contact if it is not resolved?
- 05Who is currently responsible for managing the home while the manager's registration application is being assessed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2023 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 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but gaps in personalised care, staffing, infection control and records.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 24 and 29 September 2021. They spoke with four people, seven relatives and 11 staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management information.
People appeared relaxed and happy, and staff treated them kindly and knew them well. The home was rated Good for Effective and Caring. Staff supported people with communication, food, healthcare, dignity and least restrictive care.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with Safe, Responsive and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement. Care, risk and medicines plans were not always up to date. Inspectors also found concerns about staffing levels, infection control, activities, community access and management checks.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff communicate calmly and respectfully. Relatives also gave positive feedback about the warmth and professionalism of staff.
“Staff engaged with people in a respectful and kind manner.” from the report
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe at the home. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns.
“People and their relatives told us that people felt safe living at Riverside House.” from the report
Support with health and choices
People were supported to access healthcare and make choices about meals and daily routines. Staff followed the principles of least restrictive care.
“People had been supported to access health professionals as required and in emergencies.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousThere were occasional days or parts of days when fewer staff than required were on duty. Inspectors said this could affect timely, personalised care and the management of incidents.
“There had been the occasional day (or part of days) when there had been less than the required staff numbers on duty.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingVisitors, PPE access and hand hygiene arrangements did not always follow good infection control practice. Inspectors were not assured that outbreaks could be effectively prevented or managed.
“We were not always assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections as best infection control practice was not being used when visitors entered the home.” from the report
Limited personalised activities
needs fixingStaffing made it difficult to maintain activities throughout the week and to support people to re-engage with the wider community. The provider had not shown clearly how people's interests, independence and aspirations were being supported.
“It had been difficult to maintain this level of activities in the home for the rest of the week and to support people to re-engage with the wider community.” from the report
Weak management oversight
needs fixingThe provider's checks had not always been maintained during the pandemic. Health and safety checks, staff training and supervision meetings had sometimes been delayed.
“The provider had not fully maintained their own oversight and governance processes to ensure the quality of care being provided, care records and staff development was being maintained.” from the report
- 01How have you updated each person's care, risk, medicines and Health Action Plans since this inspection?
- 02What staffing numbers are now planned for each shift, and how do you cover times when more than one person needs immediate support?
- 03What changes have you made to visitor procedures, PPE access, hand hygiene and outbreak management?
- 04How are people now being supported to take part in activities and re-engage with the wider community?
- 05How do you check that staff training, supervision, health and safety checks and care records are kept up to date?
This inspection covered all five CQC key questions and included infection prevention and control; it found the ratings for Safe, Responsive and Well-led had fallen from Good, while Effective and Caring remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 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 House
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 2011.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.