CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rushey Mead Manor Care and Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, with enough staff and risk assessments in place. Inspectors found some medicines recording issues, but the manager took immediate action and no one was harmed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and hydration needs were met. Staff were trained, worked with health professionals and supported people with consent, mental capacity and healthcare decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not inspected during this focused visit, so no rating is given here.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's cultural, communication and end of life needs. People could follow interests, maintain relationships and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager and systems for checking quality, learning from incidents and making improvements. People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rushey Mead Manor Care and Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines and outdoor-space issues addressed during the visit.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 14 and 15 June 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, trained workers, personalised care, suitable food and good links with health professionals.
The rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in September 2021. The provider had been in breach of regulations then, but inspectors found that the required improvements had been made and there were no current breaches.
Some issues were found during the visit. These included how some medicines were dated, limited outdoor seating and the lack of some picture menus for Asian meals. The manager acted immediately on the medicines and outdoor-seating points.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's preferences, cultural needs and choices. Staff knew people well and supported them in ways that promoted dignity and independence.
“People received person centred care, and staff promoted and respected their preferences, cultural and diverse needs.” from the report
Safe staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, induction, ongoing training and staff supervision were in place.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. People told us staff were available and were quick to respond in an emergency.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had choices of food and their cultural and dietary needs were catered for. Staff supported access to GPs, community nurses, dentists and opticians.
“People were provided with a choice of food to encourage healthy and balanced diet. Individual food preferences, cultural and dietary requirements were met to maintain good health.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends and to take part in activities, hobbies and religious or cultural interests.
“People had opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies and maintain relationships with their family and friends.” from the report
Improved management
The provider had strengthened its quality checks and acted on incidents, complaints and inspection feedback. The previous regulatory breaches were no longer present.
“Comprehensive and robust systems and processes were in place to monitor quality performance in all areas of the service, and any risks or shortfalls found, were addressed.” from the report
Medicines recording
needs fixingSome short-life medicines were dated on outer boxes that could be lost or damaged. Patch application sites were not being rotated as instructed, although the manager acted immediately and no one was harmed.
“We found the opening dates of medicines with a short shelf-life such as eye drops were recorded on the outer box, which could be damaged or thrown away accidently.” from the report
Outdoor space
minorThere was initially limited outdoor seating and protection from the sun. New garden furniture was available for people and visitors the following day.
“There was limited outdoor seating and protection from the sun.” from the report
Picture menus
minorSome picture menus were not available for Asian meals. Staff used the plated meals to help people choose instead.
“Staff encouraged people to choose what they wanted to eat by showing the plated meals, as some picture menus were not available for Asian meals.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to record the opening dates of short-life medicines?
- 02How do you make sure medicine patches are applied to different body sites in line with instructions?
- 03What outdoor seating and shade are available now for residents and visitors?
- 04How do you help people who need picture menus to choose Asian meals?
- 05How have you continued the improvements made after the previous inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not inspected during this visit and ratings for uninspected questions were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 July 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 1 February 2022. It was a targeted inspection looking at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing, managing visiting and keeping its infection prevention policy up to date. Visitors had tests, temperature checks and wore masks.
The home supported people to stay in contact with family and friends. Families and residents were involved in COVID-19 decisions, including testing and vaccination. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a quality rating.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that PPE was available and used safely. Staff had training on infection prevention and the correct use of PPE.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Family visits
People were supported to keep regular contact with family and friends. Visitors followed testing, temperature-checking and mask requirements.
“People were supported to have regular contact through visits with family members and friends.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
The home had cleaning schedules and records designed for each area. These were reviewed weekly.
“Cleaning schedules and recording documents had been designed specifically for each area of the home and were reviewed weekly.” from the report
Involvement in COVID-19 decisions
People and their families were involved in decisions about testing and vaccination. The home used individual approaches to support people during the pandemic.
“People and their family members had been involved in decisions in all matters related to COVID-19, which included regular testing and vaccination.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19?
- 02What testing and vaccination evidence is currently required from staff and visiting professionals?
- 03How do visitors currently keep in touch with residents, and what infection control steps must they follow?
- 04How often are cleaning schedules and records reviewed for each area of the home?
- 05How are residents and families involved in decisions about testing and vaccination?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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 Rushey Mead Manor Care and Nursing Home
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Rushey Mead Manor Care and Nursing Home →
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Rushey Mead Manor Care and Nursing Home →
- September 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 March 2020.
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 Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.