CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Riverswey
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to protect them from harm. Risks, medicines, staffing and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had personalised care plans and staff had relevant training and supervision. The home worked well with health professionals and supported healthy choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and supported to maintain independence, relationships and personal interests.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was tailored to each person's needs, goals and preferences. People were supported to use the community, attend activities, communicate in suitable formats and raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team promoted an open and person-centred culture. Audits, meetings, feedback and partnership working were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with strong support for choice, independence and community life.
This was a planned inspection over 24 April and 13 May 2019. One inspector met the two people living at the home, spoke with four staff and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records. The inspector also spoke with two relatives and received feedback from health professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received personalised support and were involved in decisions about their care.
Staff supported people to develop independence, take part in activities, maintain relationships and access the community. Inspectors also found kind relationships between people and staff, good partnership working with health professionals and regular checks on the quality and safety of care.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the home was performing well and meeting the relevant requirements at the time of this inspection. The previous inspection in April 2017 was also rated Good.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take reasonable risks and develop their independence. Staffing was arranged so people could access the community when they wished.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Meaningful lives
People took part in activities, education, local events, holidays and day trips that matched their goals and interests.
“Staff facilitated opportunities for people to engage in a range of meaningful activities and work towards goals and learn new skills that were personal to them.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors found warm and compassionate relationships between people and staff. Staff adapted their support when someone was in hospital or another person was left alone at home.
“Staff were kind and compassionate and people enjoyed relationships with them that were fun and inclusive.” from the report
Working with health services
Health professionals praised the staff's knowledge and cooperation. Personalised health passports and coordinated care supported people's health needs.
“Riverswey have exceeded our expectations from working with other care homes.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure a new resident is compatible with the two people already living at the home?
- 02How would you respond if my relative became unwell or needed to go into hospital?
- 03What activities, education, holidays and community opportunities could you support my relative to take part in?
- 04How would you communicate care information to my relative in a format they can understand?
- 05How are my relative and family involved in care planning, reviews and decisions about the home?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, following the previous Good rating in April 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 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, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found improved oversight and people involved in the home, but staff raised concerns about limited management presence.
This was an announced, focused inspection of the home. The report says the visit took place on 15 February 2017, while the detailed section records 17 February 2017. One inspector spoke with three people, the manager and four staff, and reviewed two care plans and management records.
The home was rated Good for being well-led. Inspectors found that audits and checks had improved since the previous inspection. These included a monthly manager's workbook and health and safety checks.
People said they were happy with their support and were involved in decisions such as staff recruitment and social activities. However, staff gave mixed views about management support. Some said the manager's limited time at the home meant staffing issues were not always dealt with effectively.
Improved checks
The home introduced regular checks covering areas such as safeguarding, accidents, medicines, care records, recruitment and staffing. Inspectors saw that action was taken when problems were found.
“During this inspection we found improvements had been made in this area with the implementation of a health and safety audit and a monthly manager's workbook.” from the report
People had a say
People were involved in staff interviews, the arrival of a new resident and planning Christmas celebrations.
“People were involved in the running of the service. We saw that people were involved in the recruitment of staff as they were part of the interview panel” from the report
Staff understood people's needs
Inspectors found that the manager and staff knew people well. Staff understood the home's values and used them to support people.
“Staff we spoke to understood the values and ensured people received the care they needed.” from the report
People were happy
People spoke positively about their support and interacted well with the manager.
“People spoke of the service fondly and said they were happy with their support and interacted well with the registered manager.” from the report
Limited management presence
needs fixingSome staff said the manager's time was divided between two homes. They felt this contributed to staffing issues not being dealt with effectively and reduced oversight.
“Although the manager can be very understanding and helpful I feel Riverwey is left. The staff run Riverswey.” from the report
Mixed staff support
needs fixingHalf of the staff spoken to felt supported, while the other half felt unsupported. Some described a divided team culture and said issues were not addressed.
“Two members of staff spoke of a divided team culture because issues were not addressed and there was a lack of managerial oversight.” from the report
- 01How often is the registered manager physically present at the home, and who provides management cover when they are away?
- 02How are staffing concerns raised by staff recorded, investigated and resolved?
- 03What checks are now completed through the monthly manager's workbook and health and safety audit?
- 04How do people using the home take part in staff recruitment and decisions about new residents?
- 05What action has been taken to address the divided team culture described in the inspection report?
This was a focused inspection of well-led only, following a previous breach; the other four quality areas were not assessed in this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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 Riverswey
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 November 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.