CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Ridings
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staff recruitment, safeguarding and infection control were generally satisfactory, and there were enough staff during the inspection. However, some risk records and safety checks were overdue or incomplete, emergency learning had not prevented a repeat incident, and PRN medicine records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff received training and people could access health professionals. However, food choices and nutritional monitoring were not reliable, some professional guidance was not followed, and communication about emergency health care needed to improve.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not included in the focused inspection. The report says some staff showed kindness and compassion, but inspectors also saw limited interaction and staff discussing people within earshot.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Activities, family relationships and complaints processes were supported. However, care records did not always describe people's needs and preferences well enough, and there were gaps in end of life care records and personalised support.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The registered manager was viewed positively by some staff and the home worked with outside professionals. However, audits and feedback systems had not consistently led to improvements, and records did not always accurately show people's current needs or the care provided.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe staffing and some kind care, but serious gaps in records, food, care planning and oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 5 and 10 October 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records and other documents, and observed how care was provided.
The home had enough staff during the inspection and staff recruitment checks were completed. Medicines were generally managed safely, infection control measures were in place, and people had access to health professionals. Activities and family contact were also supported.
However, some care plans, risk assessments and safety checks were out of date or incomplete. Records did not always show that repositioning guidance was followed. There were concerns about emergency responses, food choices and quality, staff interaction, dignity and whether feedback led to action.
The overall rating changed from Good in 2018 to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The inspection was focused, so the report says ratings for questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection.
Safe recruitment and staffing
Staff had the required pre-employment checks, and inspectors saw enough staff during the visit. Safeguarding systems were in place.
“Staff were recruited safely and had pre-employment checks to determine their suitability for employment.” from the report
Training and health support
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisal. People were supported to access health professionals when needed.
“Staff received a mixture of online and practical training to support their learning.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities such as quizzes, arts and crafts and seated exercises. People were able to maintain relationships with their families.
“We saw evidence that people were provided with such activities such as arts and crafts, quizzes and seated exercises.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, personal protective equipment and outbreak arrangements were in place.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Incomplete safety records
seriousSome risk assessments, emergency evacuation plans and safety checks were overdue or incomplete. Records did not always show that recommended repositioning was carried out.
“Not all health and safety checks were completed as per provider's policy.” from the report
Emergency care and medicines
seriousThere were two incidents where emergency health care was not sought promptly, and a similar incident happened again after an earlier event. PRN medicine records did not clearly show why medicines were given or what happened afterwards.
“This resulted in reoccurrences of incidents.” from the report
Personalised care and dignity
needs fixingCare plans did not always explain people's needs, preferences or how to respond to behaviour. Inspectors saw limited interaction and staff discussing people in front of them.
“We saw staff talking about residents in the dining room in the presence of people.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousAudits and feedback systems did not reliably identify problems or lead to improvements. This included concerns about food, staff interaction and out-of-date care records.
“Governance was not always reliable and effective.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure care plans, risk assessments and personal emergency evacuation plans are reviewed on time?
- 02How do you now make sure emergency health services are contacted promptly when someone becomes unwell?
- 03How are vegetarian, nutritional and other food preferences recorded and checked at every meal?
- 04How do you record and review the reason and outcome when PRN medicines are given?
- 05What changes have been made to improve staff interaction, dignity and the use of feedback from residents and relatives?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; the report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 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, May 2018
The Ridings was rated Good overall, with outstanding responsiveness and kind, safe care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 March and 4 April 2018. One inspector and two experts by experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and activities, and reviewed care plans, staff files, training records and management records.
Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by enough trained staff and given their medicines safely. People's health, nutrition, privacy and dignity were supported. Staff were described as kind and caring, and people were involved in decisions about their care.
The strongest area was responsiveness, which was rated Outstanding. The home offered a wide range of personalised activities and adapted care to people's individual needs, interests, communication and wishes. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection in February 2016.
Personalised activities
The home offered varied activities, including individual sessions for people who did not enjoy groups. Activities reflected people's past interests, abilities and memories.
“The service went the extra mile in providing people with a broad variety of activities to prevent social isolation.” from the report
Flexible support
Staff adapted care to people's changing needs and wishes. Inspectors found examples of support with communication, room changes, food choices and personal interests.
“The service was extremely flexible and responsive to people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind, patient and caring. Staff protected privacy and dignity and encouraged people to do things for themselves.
“Everyone we spoke with before and during our inspection told us staff were kind, caring and were willing to spend time with people.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors saw enough staff on duty and found that medicines were stored, administered and monitored safely.
“Medicines were stored, disposed of and administered safely.” from the report
Good management oversight
The home used meetings, feedback and audits to monitor care and identify improvements. Staff said they felt supported and listened to.
“There were systems in place that monitored the quality of the service, resolved issues and strived for continuous improvement.” from the report
Laundry improvements still in progress
minorThe report says an action plan was being completed to improve the laundry systems. Families may want to ask what was changed and whether the work is now finished.
“Where issues were raised, the registered manager immediately produced a relevant action plan. For example, they were in the process of completing an action plan to improve the laundry systems.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the laundry systems action plan mentioned in the inspection report?
- 02How would you support someone who prefers one-to-one activities or does not enjoy noisy group activities?
- 03How would you support someone whose communication needs changed, including someone who reverted to speaking another language?
- 04What end of life care can you provide, and how would district nurses be involved if nursing support was needed?
- 05How would you support a person to keep meaningful interests, routines or relationships, including contact with a pet?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the premises; the previous overall rating in February 2016 was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 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 The Ridings
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.