CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rivington Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about visitor checks, safe admissions, PPE, testing, outbreak management and vaccination requirements. They were only somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene of the premises because cleaning schedules had been affected by COVID-19 and staff absences.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rivington Park Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls, but cleaning schedules had been affected by staff absences.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. They spoke with six staff, three residents and a visiting health professional.
Inspectors found clear checks for visitors, including symptom screening, lateral flow testing and vaccination status checks where required. People were admitted safely, staff used personal protective equipment correctly, and the home had supplies of PPE and hand sanitiser.
The home supported contact with families through video calls, telephone calls and window visits when normal visiting was restricted. Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the premises because cleaning schedules had been affected by COVID-19 and staff absences.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five CQC areas, so the report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety checks
Visitors were screened for symptoms and, where required, had lateral flow tests and vaccination status checks. They also had to wear suitable PPE.
“There were clear processes in place for visitors to the service.” from the report
Safe admissions
Inspectors found that people were admitted safely, including consideration of self-isolation requirements.
“People were admitted to the service safely. Recent changes to the admission criteria including the need to self-isolate was shared with the provider.” from the report
PPE and infection control
Staff had PPE training and could explain how to put it on and take it off safely. PPE and hand sanitising points were available throughout the home.
“Staff wore appropriate (PPE) to ensure people were protected as much as possible from the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Contact with families
When visiting was restricted, the home helped people keep in touch with family and friends through calls and window visits where possible.
“When visiting was not possible due to risk, the provider supported people to stay in contact with family and friends through regular video calls, telephone calls and window visits where possible.” from the report
Cleaning schedules affected
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured about the safety of the premises because cleaning schedules had been affected by COVID-19 and staff absences.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
- 01How have cleaning schedules changed since the inspection, and how do you check that cleaning is completed?
- 02What staffing pressures are there now, and could they affect cleaning or people's care?
- 03What are the current arrangements for visiting, including testing and PPE?
- 04How do you manage admissions, including any need for self-isolation?
- 05How do you monitor PPE supplies, staff training and COVID-19 testing?
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. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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, September 2018
Rivington Park Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found significant improvements, with some records and the building still needing attention.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 03 September 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, staff records, medicines, complaints, audits and the environment.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found improvements in managing risks, medicines, staff training, consent and quality checks.
Some improvements were still needed. Mental capacity assessments were not always specific to the decision being made. Some areas were cluttered or needed refurbishment. Most end of life preference records had not been completed, and complaint outcomes were not recorded at the home.
Improved risk management
The home had improved how it assessed and reviewed risks, including falls, bed rails and skin tears. Incidents were analysed for lessons and patterns.
“Improvements had been made to the management of risks including risks associated with the use of bed rails and people experiencing frequent falls.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff received induction, training and supervision. Inspectors found significant improvement since the previous inspection.
“There were significant improvements to staff training and supervision.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors that staff were caring and respectful. Inspectors observed patient interactions and support for privacy, dignity and independence.
“We observed compassionate and respectful interactions between staff and people throughout the inspection.” from the report
Activities and individual care
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People were supported to take part in activities inside and outside the home.
“There was a significant drive to promote social inclusion.” from the report
Stronger management checks
The home introduced regular audits, action plans and monthly compliance visits. Inspectors found these checks were effective.
“We found that the audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were being maintained at the home.” from the report
Capacity assessments
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments were generic rather than linked to the particular decision. The manager said this had been identified and would be resolved.
“However, we noted some improvements were required to ensure all mental capacity assessment undertaken were decision specific.” from the report
Clutter and refurbishment
minorSome parts of the home were cluttered, and some showers needed refurbishment. The provider said new owners were reviewing refurbishment and storage.
“However, we noted some parts of the home such as the upstairs bathroom and the upstairs lounge were cluttered.” from the report
End of life preferences
needs fixingMost preferred priorities for care records had not been completed. Completing them could help staff understand people's wishes at the end of life.
“However, in most of the cases the records were not completed.” from the report
Complaint records
minorTwo complaints had been handled satisfactorily, but the home did not keep written records of their outcomes. The manager said outcome letters were sent by head office.
“However, there was no written outcomes of the complaints.” from the report
- 01How were the decision-specific mental capacity assessments corrected after this inspection?
- 02Have the cluttered areas and showers needing refurbishment now been improved?
- 03How do you record and review each person's end of life wishes and preferences?
- 04Where are complaint outcomes recorded, and how can relatives see the response to a complaint?
- 05How are falls, bed rail use and other changing risks reviewed for each person?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas, with the premises and care provided both examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 September 2018 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 Rivington Park Care Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 April 2012.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.