CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rushwell House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed through testing, PPE, cleaning, visitor checks and outbreak procedures. The provider also said it had measures to reduce the risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rushwell House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control and visiting arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
The inspection took place on 03 February 2022. It was announced two hours beforehand and focused on infection prevention, infection control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found arrangements to reduce infection risks. These included visitor testing and checks, hand hygiene, distancing, personal protective equipment, regular COVID-19 testing, enhanced cleaning and up-to-date guidance.
The home had plans for managing outbreaks, including isolation and cohorting. Inspectors were assured that the home was meeting requirements for vaccination of non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
The overall service and the Safe question were marked ‘Inspected but not rated’. The other four questions were not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to follow several safety measures, including testing, vaccination evidence, temperature checks and signing in.
“Safe arrangements were in place for visitors to the service including professionals and others.” from the report
PPE and hygiene
Staff had infection-control training and access to a range of protective equipment. Hand sanitiser was available throughout the home.
“Staff had access to enough supplies of PPE including disposable facemasks, face visors, gloves, aprons and disinfectant wipes.” from the report
Cleaning
The home had cleaning schedules and enhanced cleaning for frequently touched areas such as door handles, light switches and handrails.
“Enhanced cleaning and disinfection took place throughout the home to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home followed current guidance during outbreaks and could use isolation and cohorting to limit the spread of infection.
“COVID-19 outbreaks followed current guidance and advice from the healthcare protection team (HPT) to contain and manage outbreaks.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection-control and visiting arrangements are in place now?
- 02How do you currently manage COVID-19 or other infection outbreaks, including isolation and cohorting?
- 03How often are people living in the home and staff tested when infection risks arise?
- 04What staffing pressures are there now, and how are they being managed?
- 05Are all non-exempt staff and visiting professionals meeting the current vaccination requirements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four quality questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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, February 2020
Rushwell House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some work still needed on staffing for activities and the building.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with four people using the home, one visitor and four staff. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff recruitment and supervision files, and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received their medicines safely and were supported by staff who understood their needs and preferences.
People were involved in their care, supported to make choices and encouraged to build independence. The home had systems for handling complaints, learning from incidents and checking the quality of care.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 14 July 2017. Inspectors noted that the building had limitations and that more staff were being recruited so people could attend all their planned activities.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, develop skills and take part in activities that mattered to them. Staff encouraged people to do as much as they could for themselves.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind, familiar care
People received care from staff who knew their needs, choices and preferences. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
“People received care from staff who knew them well. They had formed good relationships with people.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff followed medicines procedures and received relevant training. People were supported to become more independent with medicines where they wanted to.
“People were supported to become independent with their medicines where they chose to.” from the report
Person-centred care
People and, where appropriate, their relatives helped create and update care plans. These plans included personal preferences, cultural needs and individual goals.
“People's care was planned and delivered in a person-centred way.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The registered manager used audits, complaints, incidents and safeguarding information to identify improvements. Staff were involved in discussing what had gone wrong and finding solutions.
“The registered manager was pro-active in using information from audits, complaints, incidents and safeguarding alerts to improve the service.” from the report
Staffing for activities
needs fixingThere were enough staff for personal care and support, but the home was recruiting more staff so people could attend all their planned activities.
“The registered manager was recruiting more staff to ensure people could attend all of their planned activities.” from the report
Building may need adaptation
needs fixingThe provider recognised that the building had limitations. It was assessing future needs and considering how the building might need to change.
“The provider was aware the current building had limitations; they were assessing people's future needs to plan how they were to adapt the building to meet their changing needs.” from the report
Some training needed updating
minorTraining in epilepsy, moving and handling and restraint had been booked because it needed updating. Families may want to check whether this has since been completed.
“Areas of training which were booked as they required updating included the management of epilepsy, moving and handling and restraint.” from the report
- 01Has recruitment increased staffing enough for people to attend all their planned activities?
- 02What improvements are planned for the building, kitchen and garden?
- 03How are you planning for people's changing mobility and support needs in the current building?
- 04Have staff completed the training updates for epilepsy, moving and handling and restraint?
- 05How will my relative be involved in creating and reviewing their care plan and monthly goals?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2020 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 Rushwell House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 January 2011.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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. 76 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.”
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.