CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ruskin Mill College
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding procedures. Risks were assessed and reviewed, although the home was still working with local services to agree a clear referral and treatment pathway for crises.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and support plans. Staff received substantial training, and health professionals worked with the home to support people's needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found a strong person-centred culture. People were treated with kindness and dignity, and were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support was closely adapted to individual preferences, beliefs, communication needs and goals. People were supported with meaningful activities, education, employment, volunteering and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were described as approachable and supportive. The home used audits, meetings and incident reviews to monitor quality and encourage improvement.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Rated Good, with Outstanding responsiveness; inspectors found kind, personalised care, while a clear crisis referral pathway was still being developed.
Inspectors visited without giving notice on 7, 8, 9 and 15 September 2021. They spoke with five people, 13 relatives, 34 staff and 12 professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, medicines, infection controls and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Good. Responsive was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found people were treated with dignity, involved in their care and supported to develop skills, relationships and independence.
The inspection followed concerns about how risks were managed. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern. However, work was still continuing with local services to agree who would do what when someone needed specialist help during a crisis. Infection control arrangements were generally assured, but testing access was only partially assured.
Personalised support
Care plans focused on each person's whole life, including their goals, abilities, health and preferred ways of receiving support.
“People's holistic support plans reflected this approach with a section such as 'it's all about me; making my support me shaped'.” from the report
Communication support
The home used individual communication methods, specialist technology and staff training to help people express their views and understand information.
“People's information and communication needs were fully supported by staff and, in some instances, a speech and language therapist.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Staff recorded and investigated incidents, held debriefs and shared learning across the team.
“Incidents were investigated and lessons learned were shared across the whole team.” from the report
Crisis referral arrangements
needs fixingThe home had made some improvements, but it had not yet completed work with local services to clearly define responsibility when a person needed specialist support during a crisis.
“At this inspection we found that some improvement had been made and the work was still ongoing.” from the report
Access to infection testing
needs fixingInspectors were only partially assured that the home could access testing for people and staff. The home was signposted to resources because it was working across education and social care infection guidance.
“We were partially assured that the provider was accessing testing for people using the service and staff.” from the report
- 01If my relative has a mental health crisis, which local service is responsible for each part of their care and how quickly can support be arranged?
- 02What testing arrangements are currently in place for residents and staff, given the report's partial assurance about access to testing?
- 03How will my relative be involved in creating and reviewing their risk management plan, including decisions about positive risk taking?
- 04How are agency staff introduced to my relative's needs, communication methods and preferred routines?
- 05What employment, volunteering, practical skills and leisure opportunities would be available for my relative based on their interests?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of this newly registered service, while the previous rating under a different provider was Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 2021 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found kind, skilled support, but links with local mental health services were not always well established.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 8 and 11 March 2021, with some inspection work carried out virtually. Inspectors followed up concerns about how the home assessed and managed individual risks, especially for young people arriving from outside the area.
Inspectors found that staff knew people well and used care plans, training and de-escalation to manage anxiety and behaviour. Restraint was used only after other attempts had failed, and inspectors found that its use was low. They were also assured that infection control arrangements were safe.
The main shortfall was that local specialist mental health services were not always told promptly when a young person moved to the home. This meant plans for early and preventative support were not always agreed. The service had already identified this issue and planned to discuss a clearer referral and treatment pathway with local services.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was because the inspection was targeted and did not assess the whole service or a complete key question. CQC said it planned a comprehensive inspection to assess and rate the service.
Kind and individual support
Staff understood people's needs and communicated in different ways when people had difficulty communicating. Inspectors observed positive interactions and people appeared comfortable with staff.
“Staff treated people with compassion and kindness and understood people's individual needs.” from the report
Managing distress safely
Staff were trained to manage anxiety-related behaviour. They tried de-escalation before restraint and worked to keep restrictive interventions low.
“As a result, restraint was used only after attempts at de-escalation had failed.” from the report
Crisis response
When people needed urgent help during a crisis, staff contacted emergency services promptly and kept commissioners involved in important decisions.
“When young people experienced a crisis and needed more intensive support (intervention) to keep them safe; staff contacted emergency services promptly.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection prevention arrangements, including procedures for COVID-19 outbreaks, testing and protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Local mental health links
needs fixingLocal mental health services often did not know that a young person had moved to the area until a crisis happened. This could limit early, planned and preventative support.
“Local mental health services often only became aware that a young person was living locally and needed local specialist support when a crisis occurred that required emergency intervention.” from the report
- 01How quickly are local mental health services told when a young person moves to the home?
- 02Has the home agreed a clear referral and treatment pathway with local specialist services?
- 03What proactive mental health support is arranged before a young person reaches crisis?
- 04How often are behaviour support plans and risk assessments reviewed with local specialist services?
- 05What progress has been made since this inspection in reducing restrictive interventions?
This was a targeted inspection of specific safety concerns, mainly risk management and links with local mental health services; it did not assess the whole service or rate all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 2021 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 Ruskin Mill College
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- August 2017Inspected but not ratedSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 August 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.