CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rutland House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding and risk procedures. Staff numbers met people's needs, medicines records were accurate, and infection control checks were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had assessments and care plans, regular staff teams, training and support with health appointments. They could choose meals and were supported with nutrition, communication and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, communicate in ways that suited them, and have privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences, culture and religion. People could take part in activities, go into the community and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, regular audits and meetings with people. Inspectors found that checks and action plans were used to identify patterns and improve the service.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 January 2019. One inspector spoke with three people, staff and the manager, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, accident reports and quality checks.
The home supported seven people in an adapted building with individual flats and shared areas. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable care plans, good staff training and support for people's health and choices.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported independence, communication, activities and access to the community. The home was meeting the principles of promoting choice, independence and inclusion for people with learning disabilities and autism.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection in December 2015. Inspectors found no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff could explain how they would recognise and report abuse. Risk plans were in place and staff followed them.
“People told us they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships and kind responses. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity.
“We saw people were engaged with staff, talking about their plans for the day and laughing and joking.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in everyday decisions, food preparation, shopping and activities. Staff encouraged people to do what they could for themselves.
“We saw people could do what they wanted and could access their own kitchens to make a drink or meal if they wanted to.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits, meetings and action plans to monitor care and make improvements. People were involved in decisions about refurbishment.
“We saw audits were effective in identifying patterns and making changes.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you support my relative's specific communication needs, routines and preferences, and how often will their care plan be reviewed?
- 02What progress has been made with the refurbishment, and how will any remaining work affect people's daily lives?
- 03How will you make sure enough staff are available when my relative needs one-to-one or two-person support outside the home?
- 04How are medicines managed, and could residents who are able to do so have their own medicine cupboard?
- 05How do people and families give feedback, and what changes have resulted from recent meetings or audits?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions, care records, medicines records and quality checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 2019 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 Rutland House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 August 2012.
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 Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.