CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rydal Mount
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and staff were safely recruited. Inspectors found weaknesses in medicine recording, bathroom hygiene and some risk assessments, although action was taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture and management systems were in place. However, in-house checks did not always identify shortfalls, so inspectors recommended better guidance for staff carrying out audits.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rydal Mount is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some checks and records did not always identify problems.
Inspectors visited on 12 and 17 May 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, two relatives and staff. They reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found that people were treated kindly, supported to make choices and helped to enjoy activities and community life.
There were some weaknesses. Medicine records used inconsistent codes, some bathroom areas were not easy to keep hygienically clean, and a few risk assessments lacked detail. The home took immediate action on these points.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led. The other areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used for the overall rating.
Kind and respectful support
People received compassionate care. Staff understood individual needs and protected privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff focused on people’s strengths and helped them make choices, pursue interests and take part in meaningful activities.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Staff knew people well
Low staff turnover helped provide consistent support. Staff understood people’s needs and responded to changes.
“Staff turnover was low, which supported people to receive consistent care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Positive family communication
Relatives said communication was very good and that they could raise concerns and be listened to.
“Relatives said communication with the staff was very good.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingStaff used inconsistent codes when recording that medicines had not been received. The issue had not been found by the regular medicine audits, although there was no evidence of harm.
“Staff had used inconsistent codes to record when people had not received medicines but this issue had not been identified during the weekly or monthly audits of medicines.” from the report
Bathroom hygiene
needs fixingSome bathroom areas could not be kept hygienically clean. The provider planned to address these issues immediately.
“There were some areas of bathrooms which could not be kept hygienically clean” from the report
Risk assessment detail
needs fixingA couple of risk assessments did not explain some decisions in enough detail. The registered manager took immediate action.
“A couple of risks assessment records were not sufficiently detailed.” from the report
Checks did not find all shortfalls
needs fixingThe home’s in-house checks did not always identify issues with medicine records and infection control. Inspectors recommended guidance to help staff carry out more critical audits.
“These did not always identify shortfalls. These included, for example, the inconsistencies we found with medicines records and with infection control issues.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to correct the inconsistent medicine recording codes?
- 02What changes have been made to the bathroom areas, including the sealant, grab rail boards and PPE bins?
- 03How are risk assessments now checked to make sure they explain the reasons for restrictions or safety measures?
- 04What guidance have staff received to make in-house audits more critical and effective?
- 05How is the home checking that its minimum staffing level is achieved on each shift?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rydal Mount was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.
The inspection was announced and took place on 23 August 2017. One adult social care inspector reviewed records, medicines, staffing, training, recruitment and the building. They also observed care and spoke with people, staff and other professionals.
The home supported up to four people with learning disabilities. Two people lived there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, personalised care plans and support that reflected people's choices, routines and activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous comprehensive inspection on 10 July 2015.
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, needs and wishes. Staff supported different routines and helped people take part in activities that mattered to them.
“These were comprehensive, personalised and provided guidance to staff on how to support people with their daily routines and personal care.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to provide personal care and activities. Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely, with training and checks for staff.
“We saw that there were sufficient staff to support people safely.” from the report
Kind relationships
People appeared happy and safe. Staff treated people respectfully and supported their choices and relationships.
“Staff shared warm and friendly relationships with them.” from the report
Good oversight
The management team used frequent audits, surveys and reviews to monitor the service. Inspectors found that action was taken promptly when checks identified issues.
“Audits were well organised, frequent and wide ranging.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure my relative's care plan reflects their communication needs, preferences and daily routines?
- 02How many staff are normally on duty, and how do you cover personal care, activities and time in the local community?
- 03How are medicines checked, including staff training and competency checks?
- 04What activities and choices are currently available for people with different interests and routines?
- 05How will you involve me or other relatives in care reviews and decisions about my relative's support?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service, but only two people lived there and one was out for most of the day, so direct feedback from people was limited. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 2017 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 Rydal Mount
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Cumberland
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.