CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Riverview Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. They also asked about staffing pressures related to COVID-19 and were told measures were in place to reduce their effect.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls and visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 25 February 2022. It was announced 24 hours in advance and focused on infection prevention, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found that people entering the home had temperature checks, hand hygiene measures and COVID-19 testing. Staff and visitors used personal protective equipment, and the home had enough supplies.
Visits followed government guidance. The home supported virtual contact with relatives during isolation and continued visits for people nearing the end of life. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
The home used testing, temperature checks, hand hygiene and protective equipment for people entering the building. Staff also cleaned frequently touched surfaces throughout the day.
“Members of the housekeeping team were observed cleaning frequently touched surfaces, such as light switches and door handles throughout the day.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visits were arranged in line with government guidance, with testing and protective equipment available. People could also keep in touch with relatives online when isolation prevented face-to-face visits.
“Visiting for people from family and friends was consistent with current government guidance.” from the report
Support during isolation
The home provided virtual visits during isolation and continued visits for people nearing the end of life.
“For example, visiting for people nearing the end of life had continued.” from the report
Staff support
The provider paid staff their full salary when they had to isolate after a positive test, to reduce the financial disadvantage of isolation.
“The provider paid full salary to staff who were required to isolate following a positive test result to ensure they were not financially disadvantaged.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are the testing, temperature checks, hand hygiene and protective equipment arrangements described in the report still being used?
- 02How are current staffing pressures affecting the people living at the home?
- 03How are visits arranged now, including visits when someone is isolating?
- 04Can relatives still have virtual visits if face-to-face visits are not possible?
- 05How are visits supported for people who are nearing the end of life?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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, April 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found improved personalised care and infection controls, although Safe was not rated.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 January 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, staff records, policies and quality checks.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had breached one regulation. Care plans were more personal and detailed. Staff training, support, meals, decision-making arrangements and quality checks had also improved.
The overall rating is Good. Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe was inspected for infection prevention and control but was not rated. The Caring question was not looked at during this focused inspection, so its previous rating was used in the overall result.
Personalised care plans
Care plans had improved and gave staff clearer guidance about people's health, emotional, social and communication needs.
“People's care plans had improved since the last inspection. They were more person-centred and included detailed guidance for staff on ensuring that people's individual needs were met.” from the report
Better meals and nutrition
People were asked about their food preferences. The home used professional advice and personalised support for people with eating or weight concerns.
“People had received assessments of their nutritional needs. Personalised guidance, which was kept under review helped to ensure their needs were met.” from the report
Staff support and training
Staff had relevant training and regular supervision. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs and worked with other professionals when needed.
“Staff had completed a range of training courses relevant to their job roles. Core training was 'refreshed' regularly.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home continued activities during the pandemic, including exercise, arts, music, religious events and online entertainment. People could also help plan menus and activities.
“The home had maintained a range of social activities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had introduced regular care plan audits and other checks. Inspectors found that improvements were made when checks identified problems.
“Improvements and developments had been made to the quality monitoring systems. These were effective in monitoring the service and making improvements when needed.” from the report
Actions were not always dated
minorSome audit actions were not dated, so it was not always clear when improvements had been completed.
“However, although areas where shortfalls had been found had been addressed, actions were not always dated so it was not always clear when they had taken place.” from the report
Feedback records could be clearer
minorSome feedback forms did not show whether the home had acted on scores that were less than good. The manager said this would be recorded more clearly.
“However, it was not clear from some feedback surveys whether action had been taken to address areas which had been scored less than good.” from the report
Involvement in reviews was not always recorded
minorPeople and relatives said they had been involved in care reviews, but the records did not always show this involvement.
“One person and people's relatives told us they had been involved in reviews of their care. However, this was not always recorded.” from the report
- 01How will you record my relative's involvement in care plan reviews?
- 02How do you record and follow up actions from feedback that is less than good?
- 03How do you make sure actions from care and safety audits are dated and completed?
- 04What is the home's current infection prevention and control approach, including visiting and outbreak arrangements?
- 05What was the previous Caring rating, and when will Caring be reviewed again?
This was a focused inspection covering Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, with Safe inspected but not rated; Caring was not looked at and its previous rating carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 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 Riverview Lodge
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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 Brent
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. 74 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult 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.