Rakewood House Care Home

Rakewood House Care Home provides residential and nursing care for up to 30 older people, those with physical disabilities, and individuals living with dementia. This report details findings from a recent inspection by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The inspection focused on assessing the home's performance across five key areas: safety, effectiveness of care, caring approach, responsiveness to needs, and leadership quality. While the service has systems in place for many aspects of care, the inspection identified several areas where improvements are needed to ensure consistently high standards for residents.

On safety, the home's staffing levels were a significant concern, with many residents and staff reporting delays in receiving support, including for personal care. While staff are recruited safely and know how to respond to abuse concerns, and medicines are managed well, risks to residents' health and safety were not always consistently managed. Infection control practices were also not always followed, with some staff and visitors not using personal protective equipment appropriately, which poses a risk of infection.

In terms of how effective the care is, residents did not always receive support that fully reflected their individual needs and preferences, with gaps noted in some care records meaning it was not always possible to confirm if care had been delivered as planned. While staff training is generally good, improvements are needed to ensure all residents’ dietary needs, including cultural preferences, are consistently met, and the quality of meals was a point of dissatisfaction for many. Healthcare support also requires improvement, with feedback from professionals indicating gaps in documentation and continuity of care.

Regarding the caring aspect, most residents and their families felt staff were caring and kind, and staff were observed treating people with respect and encouraging independence. However, residents sometimes had to wait for personal care and were not always provided with good quality meals. There were also limited processes to allow residents to share their views on the support they receive, and cultural dietary needs were not always met.

The service's responsiveness was questioned as residents did not always receive care that fully met their needs and preferences, with inconsistencies in care documentation making it difficult to ensure care was provided as intended. While concerns and complaints were investigated, and most residents were happy with activities, gaps in care records meant that the effectiveness of support delivery could not always be confirmed. Processes for gathering resident feedback about the service were also limited.

Finally, on how well-led the service is, management completed various audits, but these were not always effective in maintaining appropriate quality and safety standards. Staff reported that due to staffing levels, they were sometimes unable to provide the desired standard of care. While the service collaborates with community agencies, there is a need for improved systems to gather resident feedback and ensure that lessons learned from incidents lead to timely improvements.