You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 2 December 2017

This inspection took place on 26 October 2017. It was an unannounced visit to the service.

We previously inspected the service in October 2016. The service was not meeting all of the requirements of the regulations at that time. At the last inspection we found breaches of the regulations in relation to recruitment practice and notifying us of events which they were required to. We asked the provider to take action to address these breaches. They sent us an improvement plan which outlined what they would do to remedy matters. During this inspection we saw the required improvements had been made.

The Cookham Riverside is a nursing home which provides nursing and personal care for up to 35 older people. Twenty five people were living at the service at the time of our visit.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run. The service was managed well overall. However, we have needed to put a limiter on the rating of the ‘well-led’ domain due to a condition of registration not being fully met. This needs attention by the provider and registered manager.

We received positive feedback about the service. Comments from people included “Lovely people here, very good, no complaints at all. Staff treat me very well indeed,” “The staff are nice and talkative” and “Carers are very good.” Feedback from a community professional included “I have no concerns regarding the standard of care available and wish all the homes I visited were as welcoming and caring as the staff at Cookham Riverside. If I had an elderly relative I would happily place them in this home.”

People were cared for by staff who had been recruited appropriately. Staff received support to help them meet people’s needs. This included training and meeting with their managers to discuss practice.

People were safeguarded against the risk of abuse. Staff knew how to raise any concerns. There were procedures for them to follow if they felt people were being harmed in any way. People received the healthcare support they needed; their medicines were managed well and given to them in accordance with their prescriptions.

The care and support people needed had been recorded in care plans. There were risk assessments to reduce the likelihood of people being harmed or injured whilst they received support. Both types of document had been reviewed regularly to make sure they kept pace with changes to people’s circumstances.

People knew how to raise any concerns and were relaxed when speaking with staff and the registered manager. Complaints were responded to appropriately. People were asked for their views about the home in reviews and via surveys. The quality of people’s care was regularly monitored.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The building was well maintained and complied with gas and electrical safety standards. Equipment was serviced to make sure it was in safe working order. Evacuation plans had been written for each person, to help support them safely in the event of an emergency.

Inspection areas



Updated 2 December 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from harm because staff received training to be able to identify and report abuse. There were procedures for staff to follow in the event of any abuse happening.

People�s likelihood of experiencing injury or harm was reduced because risk assessments had been written to identify areas of potential risk and minimise these.

Improvement had been made to recruitment procedures to make sure people were supported by staff with the right skills and attributes.

People lived in premises which were well maintained and free of hazards, to protect them from the risk of injury.



Updated 2 December 2017

The service was effective.

People received safe and effective care because staff were appropriately supported through regular supervision and training.

People received support with their healthcare needs.

People were supported with their nutritional needs and referred to the appropriate community professionals where there were concerns.



Updated 2 December 2017

The service was caring.

People said they were supported by staff who were kind and caring.

People�s views were listened to and acted upon.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect; people�s privacy was protected.

People were supported by staff who engaged with them well and took an interest in their well-being.



Updated 2 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s preferences and wishes were supported by staff and through care planning.

There were procedures for making compliments and complaints about the service. Complaints were handled appropriately at the service.

People were supported to take part in activities to increase their stimulation.

The service responded appropriately if people had accidents or their needs changed, to help ensure they remained independent.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 December 2017

The service was not consistently well-led.

The service had not fully complied with a condition of registration to have a registered manager for each regulated activity it provided.

People�s care was monitored to make sure it was safe, effective and met their needs.

The registered manager knew how to report any serious occurrences or incidents to the Care Quality Commission. This meant we could see what action they had taken in response to these events, to protect people from the risk of harm.

People and their relatives were asked for their views about the home and the services it provided.