You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 October 2016

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on the 10 October 2016. At the last inspection in June 2013 we found the provider met the regulations we looked at.

Richmond Care is a nursing home with 20 beds that provides care and support for people with enduring mental health problems and/or substance misuse issues. The accommodation is situated over three floors and includes a number of communal areas and a large garden.

There was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe and the service was caring. There were systems in place to manage risk and protect people from abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities and knew what actions they needed to take to ensure people were protected.

Overall there were sufficient numbers of appropriately trained staff on duty to care for people. Recruitment checks had been carried out on all staff to ensure they were suitable to work in a care setting with vulnerable people.

Medicines were safely administered by staff who had received appropriate training, including an annual check of their competence.

Equipment, such as hoists, bathing aids and pressure relieving mattresses were available in the home and these helped promote people's safety and comfort. There were new procedures in place to ensure standards of cleanliness were monitored and maintained.

Our inspection of the building showed it was a safe environment in which to care for vulnerable people with the exception of some damaged floor coverings and a broken window restrictor.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled and demonstrated a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Staff had completed training to ensure the care and support provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs.

Staff understood the importance of encouraging people to make choices, where they were able to, and always sought consent before undertaking any care. There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff were trained in the principles of the MCA and could describe how people were supported to make decisions; and where people did not have the capacity; decisions were made in their best interests.

Most people we spoke with were happy with the quality and choice of food provided at the home.

People were supported to maintain good health and where needed specialist healthcare professionals, such as dieticians, were involved with their care.

People who used the service were very positive about the care they received. People told us the staff were caring and their dignity and privacy were respected.

Care plans were person centred and were reviewed regularly by the trained nurses. Staff cared safely for people with a variety of complex health problems.

Records showed people were involved in range of activities. However, some people told us they were sometimes bored at the service.

There were systems in place to ensure complaints and concerns were fully investigated.

Quality assurance processes such as audits were in place to ensure that the service delivered high quality care that met people's needs.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 October 2016

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to ensure that people received their medicines safely. Risk assessments were in place to ensure people received safe and consistent care.

Staff were confident in recognising safeguarding concerns and potential abuse and were aware of their responsibilities in protecting people.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people using the service and staff had been recruited following safe recruitment procedures.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 October 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by skilled and knowledgeable staff. Staff had received training in a variety of subjects which enabled them carry out their roles effectively.

Staff had received training in the MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were, where appropriate, in place for people.

People who used the service received the appropriate support from staff to ensure their health and nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 October 2016

The service was caring.

People were very positive about the staff and said they were treated with kindness and respect.

Staff showed warmth and friendship to people using the service and they spoke to people in a kind and sensitive manner.

Staff knew people well and were aware of people's preferences for the way their care should be delivered.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 October 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans and associated care documents were detailed, personalised and reviewed regularly to help make sure the assessed needs and preferences of people using the service were met.

Activities were offered that enabled people to spend time with others and maintain and develop links within the community where they lived. However, some people said they would like to do more.

Systems in place for receiving and responding to concerns and complaints helped to make sure people who used the service would be confident if they had any concerns or complaints these would be appropriately addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 October 2016

The service was well- led.

Staff we spoke with told us the management team were approachable and supportive.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided by staff.

People were provided with opportunities to express an opinion about how the service was managed and the quality of service being delivered.