CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rushmore House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe medicines systems, enough staff, suitable risk assessments and appropriate safeguarding and infection control arrangements. The building was worn, and the home could not provide its electrical certificate during the inspection, although assurances were given that testing had been completed.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had not been completed for restrictive practices. The environment was also outdated and needed refurbishment, although staff training, food and healthcare support were found to be suitable.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and pleasant. Inspectors observed friendly interactions and staff supporting people's dignity, privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were offered choices, supported to maintain relationships and encouraged to take part in activities suited to their interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was visible and staff said they felt supported. Inspectors found open leadership and systems for monitoring quality, but some repositioning, capacity and best interest records had not been completed.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rushmore House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but records and the worn environment need improvement.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. It was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. The inspector visited on 20 and 21 June 2023, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements and suitable systems for managing risks, safeguarding and infection. People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Care plans were personalised and people were supported with food, healthcare, activities and visits from relatives.
The Effective rating was Requires Improvement. Some mental capacity assessments and best interest records were missing where restrictive practices were used. Some other records were also incomplete. The home was worn and outdated, although renovation plans were in place.
The overall rating of Good means inspectors found the service performing well overall. It does not mean everything was perfect. The home was asked to improve its record keeping, but the report does not state that any regulations were breached.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels and skill mix were safe and sufficient. People said staff came quickly when they needed help.
“Staffing levels and skill mix was demonstrated as safe and sufficient.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors also observed caring and friendly interactions.
“People and their relatives told us staff were caring, respectful and pleasant.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's abilities, support needs and preferences. Reviews involved people and their relatives.
“Care plans were updated and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure staff to follow the most up to date information.” from the report
Good healthcare support
The home worked with healthcare professionals and made referrals when needed. People had regular health checks and hospital passports.
“People were supported with their healthcare needs. We saw evidence of engagement with a range of healthcare professionals.” from the report
Missing capacity records
needs fixingNot all mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed. This included records for bed rails and a lap belt, both of which can restrict a person's movement.
“not all mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed.” from the report
Incomplete records
needs fixingSome repositioning charts and other records were incomplete. Inspectors recommended that governance systems should check record keeping more effectively.
“some reposition charts, MCA's and best interest records had not been completed.” from the report
Worn environment
minorThe home was old and needed updating, including refurbishment suitable for people living with dementia. Management said renovation work was planned.
“The design and decoration of the home was worn, old and in need of an update.” from the report
Generic end of life plans
needs fixingThe end of life care plans inspectors reviewed did not always contain enough personal detail. Management said staff were working to improve them.
“End of life care plans we reviewed were generic and did not always identify specific details.” from the report
- 01Have all mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions now been completed for people using bed rails or lap belts?
- 02What checks are now in place to make sure repositioning charts and other care records are completed?
- 03What renovation work is planned, and when will the parts of the home used by people living with dementia be updated?
- 04How are end of life care plans being made more personal and specific?
- 05Can you explain how you check that care remains safe and effective between CQC inspections?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the care, premises and management of the newly registered home, with visits on 20 and 21 June 2023. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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 Rushmore House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2023
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 2023.
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 Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.