CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ruddington Manor Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Ruddington Manor Care Centre is rated Good; inspectors found major improvements in safety, care and management, although this was a focused inspection.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 18 July 2023. They spoke with 6 people, 3 relatives and 5 staff. They reviewed 5 care records, medicine records and management documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, diabetic care had improved and staff understood people's needs.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with breaches linked to safety, care and treatment, and management. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach of those regulations.
This was a focused inspection. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward into the overall rating.
Safer medicines and diabetic care
Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. Diabetic care had improved, with timely blood sugar monitoring and consideration of continuous monitoring technology.
“People were safe from the risk of harm and medicines were stored and administered safely. Significant improvements had been made in relation to diabetic care.” from the report
Clearer risk planning
Care plans contained more complete and personalised risk assessments. Emergency evacuation plans gave staff clearer instructions for supporting people who needed extra help.
“All care plans had been reviewed since our last inspection and now contained comprehensive person-centred risk assessments which staff were knowledgeable about” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People said they felt safe and that staff respected their privacy and dignity. They also said staff helped them remain as independent as possible.
“People and relatives told us staff were, "Kind and caring" and "Willing to go the extra mile".” from the report
Improved management checks
Audits had become more frequent and were used to identify problems and track actions. Daily staff meetings helped share information and gather feedback.
“Audits were completed daily now as opposed to weekly or monthly and staff received feedback immediately if concerns were identified.” from the report
Enough trained staff
People said there were always enough staff, and inspectors found staff were recruited safely and had relevant knowledge and experience.
“People told us there were always enough staff. One person said, "If I press my buzzer someone always comes quickly, day or night".” from the report
Recent history of safety problems
needs fixingThe previous inspection found failures in assessing and managing risks and in managing medicines. Inspectors said these issues had been addressed by this inspection, but families may wish to ask how the improvements are maintained.
“At our last inspection the provider failed to ensure systems had been established to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure the improvements in medicines management continue on every shift?
- 02How are people's blood sugar levels monitored, and how do you decide whether continuous glucose monitoring is suitable?
- 03When were my relative's personal emergency evacuation plans last reviewed?
- 04How are daily audits used to find and correct problems quickly?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in care planning and reviews?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 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, May 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, care planning, emergency evacuation information and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 April 2023. Inspectors checked whether the home was safe, effective and well-led. They spoke with 19 people or relatives and 14 staff, and reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
People did not always receive personalised care. Care plans and risk assessments were not consistently kept up to date. Some people with diabetes did not have suitable care plans, and medicines were not always given at the prescribed time. Personal emergency evacuation plans also contained inaccurate information.
The home had caring and knowledgeable staff, safe recruitment, good infection control and clean premises. People generally said they felt safe and supported. However, audits and management checks had not found or fixed important problems. The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People and relatives generally said they felt safe and well supported. Staff knew people well and understood how to help them.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home as staff knew them well.” from the report
Kind and experienced staff
Inspectors found a mix of knowledgeable and experienced staff. People said staff were kind and responded to their needs.
“People were supported by skilled and experienced staff.” from the report
Clean premises
The home was very clean and well maintained. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention arrangements were in place.
“The home was exceptionally clean and well maintained throughout.” from the report
Safe recruitment
Staff recruitment included suitable checks, including Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
“Staff were recruited safely and employed following suitable checks, including a Disclosure and Barring Service check.” from the report
Access to healthcare
The home had systems for referring people to outside health services. Professionals said the service responded to urgent needs.
“The service had clear systems and processes for referring people to external services, which were applied consistently” from the report
Medicines and diabetes care
seriousSome people did not have suitable diabetes care plans. One person's blood sugar checks and insulin were recorded after meals even though they were prescribed before meals. Some as-required medicines also lacked clear instructions.
“Medicines were not always managed or administered appropriately.” from the report
Emergency evacuation information
seriousPersonal emergency evacuation plans did not always include people's hearing, vision, mobility needs or equipment. This could delay a safe evacuation.
“This meant people were at risk of not being evacuated from the building safely or a timely manner in an emergency.” from the report
Care plans and involvement
needs fixingCare plans were not always personalised or up to date. People and relatives said they had not always been involved in planning or reviewing care, and consent was not consistently recorded.
“People and their relatives told us they had not been involved in their care planning or reviews.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits and reviews did not identify important problems with care planning, consent, medicines and risk assessments. Issues that had already been highlighted were not always dealt with quickly.
“Audits and reviews were completed but had failed to identify the issues we found with care planning and obtaining consent to care.” from the report
Medicines waste
seriousStaff did not always follow safe procedures for destroying medicine waste. Single-use destruction kits had been used more than once.
“Staff were not following safe systems for managing medicines waste.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that every person with diabetes now has an accurate care plan, including what staff should do for abnormal blood sugar readings?
- 02How do you ensure insulin and other medicines are given at the prescribed times, and how are as-required medicines managed?
- 03Have you updated every personal emergency evacuation plan to include each person's mobility, hearing, vision and equipment needs?
- 04How are residents and relatives now involved in writing and reviewing care plans, and how is consent recorded?
- 05What progress has been made against the CQC action plan, and how are managers checking that improvements are sustained?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; the report says the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 May 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 Ruddington Manor Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Ruddington Manor Care Centre →
- May 2023Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Ruddington Manor Care Centre →
- August 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 July 2018.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.