CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ryelands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe recruitment and safe medicines management. A ceiling leak was found during heavy rain, but emergency repairs were carried out during the visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans reflected their choices. Staff were trained and supported, and people were helped with nutrition, healthcare and specialist needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, sought consent and supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people had choice and control. Activities were available, but people wanted a wider range and more outings, which the home was working to improve.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found experienced leadership, regular checks and systems for responding to complaints, accidents and incidents. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with more activities still being developed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 November 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting chaplain. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care planning and good support with health, food and drink.
People and relatives described kind and respectful care. The home offered activities and events, but some people wanted more choice and more outings. The home had already recruited an activities coordinator and planned to restart outings when its minibus was operational.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. People and relatives said staff were available when support was needed.
“There were enough staff to support people and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient and friendly. They respected privacy, sought consent and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
“Staff were kind and patient when supporting people.” from the report
Health and medicines
People were supported to eat and drink enough, access healthcare and take medicines safely and as prescribed.
“People were supported to stay healthy and well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's preferences, routines, likes and dislikes. Staff understood how people wanted their care to be given.
“People had choice and control about how they wanted to receive care and support from staff.” from the report
Strong management
The registered manager had experience and oversight of the home. Regular audits and provider checks were used to monitor quality and safety.
“The registered manager had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their role and a clear understanding of people's needs.” from the report
More activities and outings wanted
minorPeople enjoyed the activities but wanted a wider range and more outings. The home had recruited an activities coordinator and said outings would restart when the minibus was operational.
“People's feedback indicated, although they enjoyed the majority of activities, they would like a wider range of activities to take part in at the service.” from the report
Meal service could be quicker
minorInspectors found the lunchtime service was slower in one part of the home. Managers said they would look at ways to reduce waiting times.
“We noted the service was slower in one part of the home.” from the report
Water leak during inspection
minorHeavy rain caused water to come through a ceiling in a first-floor corridor, creating a potential hazard. Staff were already aware and made repairs and made the area safe during the visit.
“During our inspection, due to heavy rain, we saw water coming through a celling in a corridor on the first floor of the home which was a potential hazard to people.” from the report
- 01What new activities and community outings are now available, and is the minibus operational?
- 02What changes were made to reduce waiting times for meals in the slower part of the home?
- 03Was the ceiling leak fully repaired, and what checks are now in place during heavy rain?
- 04How are staffing levels reviewed as people's needs change?
- 05How are people's personal preferences and independence included in their care plans?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control checks; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 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, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some risks and staffing checks needing attention.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 28 November 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and other professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, and were supported by trained staff. The home was clean, and staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about the people they supported.
There were some issues to address. One person's risk of falling from bed had not been identified. One staff member had started work before their health declaration was returned. Some people felt staffing could be short in the evenings, and the range of activities could be wider. The home also had no registered manager during the visit, although the manager became registered shortly afterwards.
The home was already rated Good overall and in all five areas at the previous inspection on 22 September 2015. This inspection found that it had continued to be Good.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were seen treating people with warmth, patience and respect. They adapted how they communicated and supported people's dignity and privacy.
“During our inspection we observed staff interacting with people in a kind, caring manner.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely. Only trained senior care workers administered medicines, and checks found people received them as prescribed.
“Our checks of medicines in stock and medicines records indicated people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Good care information
Care plans gave staff useful information about people's physical, emotional and social needs, as well as their backgrounds and preferences.
“People's care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs.” from the report
Strong management checks
The provider used audits and incident reviews to monitor the service and share learning. Inspectors found leadership was visible and staff understood their roles.
“The provider had good quality assurance processes in place to monitor and improve the service.” from the report
Evening staffing
needs fixingOne person said staffing could sometimes be short in the evenings, although inspectors saw enough staff during the visit and checks showed call bells were usually answered promptly.
“One person told us, "Sometimes it's a bit short in the evenings. It's quite different in the day, there's plenty about.” from the report
Recruitment record
needs fixingOne staff member had started work before their health declaration had been returned. The provider said it would audit staff files for any similar omissions.
“We identified the provider had allowed a member of staff to start work even though they had not returned their health declaration.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after inspectors identified that a person's risk of falling from bed had not been assessed?
- 02How do you check that there are enough staff in the evenings, and what are the usual evening staffing levels?
- 03How do you make sure every staff member has completed all required recruitment and health checks before starting work?
- 04What changes were made to the activities programme after people asked for a wider range of activities?
- 05Is the manager still in post, and what is the home's current CQC rating?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home; the previous inspection in 2015 had also rated all five areas Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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 Ryelands
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Sutton
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.