CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rush Hill Mews
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by systems for safeguarding, risk management, staffing and infection control. Inspectors found some medicines recording errors and incomplete food and fluid monitoring records, but no impact on people.
- 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
- The provider and registered manager had effective oversight of safety and care quality. The home used audits, feedback and incident reviews to identify improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, but medicines and food and fluid records were not always complete.
Inspectors visited on 23 and 24 January 2023. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, audits and recruitment records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. People said they felt safe, staffing levels met people's needs, and staff understood how to protect people from abuse and manage risks.
Inspectors found some shortfalls. Medicines records were not always completed correctly, and food and fluid monitoring records were sometimes incomplete or lacked detail. The home said it would provide extra staff training. Inspectors found no impact on people from these recording problems.
This inspection looked at Safe and Well-led. Both ratings remained Good from the previous inspection, published on 18 May 2018. The other three areas were not rated in this report.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“People told us they felt safe. Comments from people included, "Yes I feel safe, feel at home" and, "Yes I don't feel unsafe.” from the report
Suitable staffing
Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff to meet people's needs. Staffing levels were assessed using people's individual needs.
“Processes were in place to ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and safely recruited staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good risk planning
Care plans included guidance about risks such as falls, choking, malnutrition and skin damage. Staff also had person-centred guidance for supporting people who became distressed.
“When risks were identified, care plans provided guidance for staff about how this should be managed.” from the report
Open management
People and staff said they could raise concerns. The provider reviewed incidents, safeguarding and quality information to help improve care.
“Information was reviewed and scrutinised to identify shortfalls and drive improvement.” from the report
Medicines recording
needs fixingSome handwritten medicine instructions were not countersigned by a second member of staff. The home said it would provide extra support and training.
“We found some recording shortfalls in relation to medicines management.” from the report
Food and fluid records
needs fixingSome monitoring records were incomplete or lacked detail. Inspectors found no impact on people, but the home said it would provide further training.
“However, records we reviewed were not always complete or lacked detail.” from the report
Activities
minorThe provider had identified that activities were not always matched to people's individual interests. An action plan was in place and an additional activities coordinator was being recruited.
“The provider had identified activities provision was an area for further development; provision was not always aligned to people's individual interests.” from the report
- 01What extra training has been completed to improve medicines recording, and how do you check that handwritten instructions are countersigned?
- 02How do you make sure food and fluid monitoring records are complete and detailed for people who need monitoring?
- 03What progress has been made with the action plan for activities since the inspection?
- 04How are activities matched to each person's interests and wishes?
- 05What are the current ratings or latest findings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not covered in this report?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other three key-question ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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, February 2022
Rush Hill Mews: targeted inspection found good infection control and visiting arrangements, but no overall rating was given.
Inspectors visited on 28 January 2022 with one day's notice. This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures.
The home was clean and fresh. Staff were trained in infection control and were seen using personal protective equipment correctly. Inspectors were assured that the home was managing testing, admissions, outbreaks, hygiene, social distancing and visitors safely.
The home had a separate visitors' room and supported people to see relatives in line with government guidance. It was also meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and fresh. Cleaning routines had been reviewed and increased during the pandemic, including extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The service was clean and fresh, the daily cleaning routines had been reviewed and enhanced during the pandemic” from the report
Infection control
Staff had received infection-control training and were observed using suitable personal protective equipment correctly.
“All staff had received training and followed correct infection control and were observed using appropriate PPE.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home supported relatives to visit safely. It provided a separate visitors' room and managed bedroom visits so that visitor numbers did not affect safety.
“The provider ensured people living at the home were able to see their relatives safely and in accordance with the current government guidance.” from the report
Vaccination arrangements
The home was meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
“The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are COVID-19-related staffing pressures being managed now?
- 02Is the separate visitors' room still available, and how are visits currently arranged?
- 03How are you checking that staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination requirements?
- 04How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and how is this recorded?
- 05What infection-control arrangements are used if someone is admitted or if an outbreak occurs?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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.
Every inspection of Rush Hill Mews
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 November 2017.
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
25 live-in carers within about an hour of Bath and North East Somerset
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 £1,030 to £1,320 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She enabled mum to lead a high quality life in her own home until the very end and Lena and her family became close personal friends to me and my family.”
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.