CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ryde Cottage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, clear risk assessments, safe medicines arrangements and measures to reduce infection risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained, supervised and supported. People had access to suitable food, drink and healthcare, and staff followed the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff had positive relationships with people and treated them with dignity and respect. People's communication styles, privacy, choices and wishes were understood and supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and based on people's needs, preferences and interests. Staff responded promptly when needs or behaviour changed, and families were involved in decisions.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a clear management structure and staff felt supported. The home worked with other professionals and used audits, feedback and action plans to improve.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 2 and 12 November 2018. They spoke with people living there, family members, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, safeguarding information, medicines records, recruitment and training files, and management records.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, effective risk assessments, safe medicines systems and a clean environment. People received care from trained staff and were supported to make choices, access health services and take part in activities.
Inspectors found kind and respectful relationships. Care plans were detailed and personal. Families and professionals were involved in decisions, and quality checks were being used to improve the service.
The overall rating was Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection in May 2017 found no breaches but rated the service Requires improvement. This inspection found that improvements had been made.
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, backgrounds, health needs and how they wanted to be supported. People were involved in developing their plans and building daily life skills.
“Each person had a care plan in place which contained detailed person-centred information, which included people's preferences, backgrounds, medical conditions and behaviours.” from the report
Respect and choice
Staff supported people to make choices about their daily lives, respected refusals and protected privacy. Staff also used individual communication guidance to understand people's views and wishes.
“The management team and staff worked hard to ensure that people's choices and wishes were respected.” from the report
Activities and family involvement
People had individual activity timetables and were supported with interests such as cooking, swimming, community visits and family relationships. Families were kept informed and involved in care decisions.
“People were provided with appropriate mental and physical stimulation and activities were offered as a result of consultation with people and their relatives about their interests.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular checks of medicines, care records, incidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns. Managers also completed peer audits and action plans.
“There were robust auditing and quality assurance processes to place to allow ongoing learning and development.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Has the manager since become registered with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home if the manager is absent?
- 02How are each person's current risks reviewed, including risks linked to community activities, choking, eating and drinking, and behaviour?
- 03How do you check that medicines, including as-required medicines, are given and recorded correctly?
- 04How are people and their families involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?
- 05Has the advance care planning tool mentioned in the report been completed, and how are people's end of life wishes recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions and involving people, families, staff and health and social care professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 2018 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
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but care records, decision-making checks and quality monitoring needed improvement.
The unannounced inspection took place on 27 July and 3 August 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a care professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff records and quality checks.
People were supported by enough staff and received medicines safely. Staff were kind, respectful and understood people's communication styles. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, independence and contact with relatives.
There were important gaps. Capacity assessments were not always completed as required. Some risks, allergies, religious needs and instructions for as-needed medicines were not recorded clearly. Records were not always accurate, and quality checks had not found these problems. The provider updated some records during the inspection, but the new approach was not yet fully established.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Caring were rated Good. Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. This means the home had several positive features, but inspectors found areas that needed further work.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were given by trained staff, records were completed correctly and checks were carried out. Staff also respected people's choices when they initially refused medicine.
“People received their medicines safely, from staff who had completed the appropriate training and had their competency to administer medicines checked.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff communicating warmly, protecting people's privacy and offering choices in ways people could understand.
“Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and were sensitive to their individual communication styles, choices and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels allowed people to receive support without being rushed. People could go out, take part in activities and access the community.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.” from the report
Training and support
Staff had induction training, ongoing training, supervision and appraisals. The provider monitored whether required training had been completed.
“People were supported by staff who had received an effective induction into their role.” from the report
Capacity checks were incomplete
needs fixingCapacity assessments had not always been completed for people who needed support with particular decisions. The home had started using a new form, but this was not fully established during the inspection.
“People's ability to make decisions was not always assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA).” from the report
Care plans did not always cover individual needs
needs fixingSome care records did not explain how allergies, religious needs, caffeine reduction or as-needed medicines should be managed. The manager took action to update records during the inspection.
“People did not always receive care and treatment that was personalised and met their needs.” from the report
Records were not reliable enough
needs fixingSome records about care and the running of the home were inaccurate or out of date. Inspectors found errors in one weekly medicines audit as well as gaps in risk and care records.
“The records associated with the provision of care and those related to the running of the home were not always accurate and up to date.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home had several audits and monitoring systems, but they had not identified the issues found during the inspection. The provider said it was developing stronger checks.
“However, this approach was not robust and did not identify the concerns we found during the inspection.” from the report
- 01Have capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now been completed for every person who needs help with particular decisions?
- 02How are risks such as seizures, distressing behaviour and allergies recorded, reviewed and explained to all staff?
- 03How does the home make sure care plans include each person's religious needs and clear instructions for as-needed medicines?
- 04What new quality checks have been introduced since the inspection, and how do they show that records are accurate?
- 05Can you show how the home has checked that the improvements identified during this inspection have been maintained?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions and the overall service rating; it was the home's first ratings inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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 Ryde Cottage
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 June 2015.
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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.