CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Riviera Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some risk assessments did not give staff enough detail, and unsuitable first-floor window restrictors created an increased risk of harm. Medicines were mostly managed safely, but some guidance for variable doses was unclear.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The home did not always properly assess or record capacity and best-interest decisions, including decisions about finances and CCTV. Staff training, support, healthcare access and food provision were otherwise described positively.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with sensitivity, compassion, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care as much as they wished.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and based on people's needs, preferences and wellbeing. People knew how to complain, and the home provided information in formats people could understand.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality systems were not robust enough to identify and address problems. Inspectors also found concerns about confidential information, CCTV arrangements and understanding of people's rights.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Riviera Court was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but gaps in risk management, consent and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection in April 2023. Inspectors visited on 17 and 19 April, spoke with people, staff, relatives and healthcare professionals, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and quality records.
People generally said they felt safe, happy and treated with kindness. Staff knew people well, provided personalised support and helped people maintain independence. The home had also been refurbished since the new provider took over in November 2022.
However, some risks were not clearly recorded or managed. Inspectors also found problems with Mental Capacity Act decisions, medicines guidance, infection control in the laundry, recruitment records and quality checks. These issues meant the home was not always safe, effective or well-led.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good, while Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The report says the provider must send an action plan, and CQC will monitor progress with the local authority.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respond warmly and compassionately. People said staff respected their dignity and privacy.
“Throughout the inspection we saw staff responding to people through touch, and with affection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's skills, needs and preferences. Staff understood how to support people with their mental health and daily lives.
“People received individualised care and support from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Staffing and support
Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs safely. Staff had training, supervision and access to management support.
“Staff were employed in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs safely and the registered manager described how staffing levels were regularly reviewed.” from the report
Health and food choices
People could make choices about food and drink, and the home catered for several specialist diets. People were supported to access health professionals.
“Specialist diets were catered for, including vegetarian, vegan, gluten free and diabetic.” from the report
Improvements to the building
The new provider had refurbished communal areas and bedrooms, with further improvements planned. People, staff and relatives were pleased with the changes.
“The service had undergone extensive refurbishment to improve the safety and standard of accommodation for people living at the service and ensure the building met people's needs.” from the report
Risk information was incomplete
seriousSome care records did not clearly distinguish current from historic risks. Some risk assessments lacked enough detail to guide staff safely.
“People were at risk of avoidable harm as staff did not always have all of the information needed to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Consent and best-interest decisions
seriousThe home did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act properly. Inspectors found missing assessments and records for decisions about finances and CCTV.
“The failure to properly assess and record people's capacity and best interest decisions risked compromising people's rights.” from the report
Quality oversight
seriousThe home's checks did not reliably identify problems with risks, medicines, recruitment, consent and infection control. Confidential information was also shared without consent or permission.
“Robust systems and processes were not in place to demonstrate the provider had effective oversight of the service.” from the report
Laundry infection control
needs fixingThe laundry did not have clear enough workflow systems. Inspectors said this increased the risk of harm and recommended that the provider obtain specialist advice.
“The lack of clear workflow systems within the laundry had placed people at an increased risk of harm.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingTwo application forms did not show a full work history, and gaps in employment had not been documented. CQC recommended reviewing recruitment processes.
“This meant the provider was unable to demonstrate they had followed a thorough recruitment process.” from the report
- 01How have you updated people's risk assessments so staff can clearly tell which risks are current and what action to take?
- 02What checks now show that Mental Capacity Act assessments and best-interest decisions are completed and recorded correctly?
- 03What changes have been made to the laundry workflow to reduce the risk of cross-contamination?
- 04How are variable-dose and as-needed medicines now explained to staff?
- 05What evidence can you show that the action plan and quality checks have addressed the inspection findings?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the newly registered home covering all five key questions, with visits on 17 and 19 April 2023; the previous provider's Requires Improvement rating was published in October 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 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.
Every inspection of Riviera Court
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2022.
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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.