CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rykneld View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed through PPE, testing, isolation, cleaning and social distancing. They asked the manager to use the COVID-19 testing room for visitors and review the sluice area.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this targeted report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this targeted report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this targeted report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this targeted report.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rykneld View was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, with two areas for review.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 February 2021. It checked infection prevention and control during the coronavirus outbreak, rather than the full range of care.
Inspectors found clear visitor controls, testing arrangements, PPE, cleaning schedules and staff training. People were isolated during the outbreak, and staff were allocated to areas where possible.
The inspectors were assured in most infection control areas. They asked the manager to use the testing room for visitors and review the sluice area. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Visitor and staff controls
The home had clear signs, signing-in arrangements, temperature checks and PPE for visiting healthcare professionals. Staff used a dedicated room for testing and putting on PPE.
“There was a sign-in book and temperature check for visiting healthcare professionals and personal protective equipment (PPE) was available in reception.” from the report
Outbreak management
During the outbreak, people were isolated in their rooms and staff were allocated to particular areas where possible. Agency staff and outside support helped maintain staffing levels when many staff were affected.
“During the outbreak people were isolated in their rooms and staff were allocated to work in certain areas to support the same people as much as possible.” from the report
Cleaning and training
The home had cleaning schedules, extra cleaning of frequently touched areas and organised laundry facilities. Staff had training in infection control, PPE, handwashing and COVID-19.
“Domestic staff had cleaning schedules in place and were performing additional cleaning of frequent touch areas.” from the report
Visitor testing room
needs fixingThe manager was asked to use the COVID-19 testing room for visitors when they arrived. The manager agreed to look at this immediately.
“However, we recommed that the manager uses the COVID-19 testing room for visitors on arrival.” from the report
Sluice area
needs fixingInspectors suggested reviewing the sluice area and following any recommendations from the infection control team. The manager agreed to do this.
“We have suggested that the manager reviews the sluice area of the home and follows any recommendations from the infection control team, which they agreed to do.” from the report
- 01Do visitors now use the COVID-19 testing room when they arrive?
- 02What did the infection control team recommend about the sluice area, and what action was taken?
- 03How are visitors currently managed, including signing in, temperature checks and PPE?
- 04How does the home manage staffing if staff are affected by an infection outbreak?
- 05When was the home's full care quality last inspected and rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; it did not inspect or rate the other four key questions or the overall quality of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not consistently safe and rated Safe as Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited on 5 and 6 April 2018. The first day was unannounced. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked records, including three people's care records.
Overall, the home continued to be rated Good, as it was at the previous inspection in February 2016. People generally received kind, effective and personalised care. Medicines, food, health care, activities and complaints arrangements were mostly handled well.
The main weaknesses were in safety. Some risk assessments were missing or incomplete. Some people waited too long for call bells, staff recruitment checks were not fully robust, and there were problems with wheelchair brakes and a fire door.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff speaking warmly with people, offering reassurance and respecting privacy and dignity.
“These issues showed that staff presented as caring, supportive and friendly to people and respected their rights.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included personal histories, preferences and lifestyle choices. People and relatives were involved in care decisions.
“Care plans contained valuable information to respond to people's individual needs.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines were stored securely and records showed people received them as prescribed.
“Medicine records showed that people received their medicine as prescribed.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and infection control procedures were observed.
“The home was clean, tidy and odour free.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousSome risks were not fully assessed. This included behaviour that challenged the service, pressure sores and falls.
“Risk assessments to promote people's safety were not always in place.” from the report
Delays answering call bells
seriousSome people and relatives reported waits of up to about 20 minutes. Inspectors noted that this had caused toileting accidents on some occasions.
“Four people thought that more staff were needed as waiting times for call bells, on some occasions, were said to be approximately 20 minutes” from the report
Recruitment checks not fully robust
needs fixingChecks were carried out, but one staff record did not show that a past issue had been risk assessed before the person started work.
“One record showed that a staff member had an issue in the past.” from the report
Wheelchair safety
seriousOn two occasions, wheelchair brakes were not applied during transfers. The manager said staff had been reminded to use them.
“There were two occasions where brakes had not been applied to people's wheelchairs” from the report
Fire safety issue
seriousThe fire risk assessment had not been reviewed regularly, and inspectors found an open fire door that should have been kept locked.
“We found a corridor cupboard fire door with a sign "Fire door keep locked" was open, which was a fire risk.” from the report
- 01Have all missing and incomplete risk assessments now been completed, including those for falls, pressure sores and behaviour that challenges the service?
- 02What is the current average and longest wait for a call bell, and how do you prevent delays causing toileting accidents?
- 03How do you check that staff always apply wheelchair brakes during transfers?
- 04Has the fire risk assessment been reviewed, and how do you make sure fire doors are kept closed or locked as required?
- 05Have staff received training on stroke, epilepsy and diabetes, and are regular supervision sessions now taking place?
This was an inspection of all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the first day was unannounced, and the overall rating was compared with the previous inspection in February 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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.
Every inspection of Rykneld View
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 May 2013.
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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Derby
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
“Rachel is a quietly spoken, extremely caring person and looked after Val very well.”
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.