Our current view of the service
Updated
15 May 2026
About the service
The service is a nursing home with 3 floors, each providing care and support to people with nursing needs. There were 58 people using the service at the time of the inspection.
Who the service is for
This service provides support to older people with nursing needs, physical disabilities and sensory impairments.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 1 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. The provider had a system in place to ensure where people required a DoLS these were in place and care plans reflected the content. Applications were made and tracked to ensure these were always up to date. Staff had knowledge of who had a DoLS in place and what this meant for each person.
A system was in place to record, review and analyse incidents. Safeguarding referrals were completed and staff understood how to raise any concerns. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and plans were in place to minimise these. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and training and support were in place. A staff member told us, “There is enough staff on all floors. Training was good, physical training and online was good. I received enough support.” Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.
People had their needs assessed and care plans were in place to provide care. Outcomes were monitored through monthly reviews and where needs had changed, updates were shared with staff. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people had their capacity assessed and decisions made in their best interests as needed.
People received person-centred care from staff who were kind, caring and responsive to their individual needs and preferences. Staff promoted people’s independence and offered them choice. A staff member told us, “We have a menu system, for instance today we go round and ask them tomorrows meal preference. If someone changes their mind, we give them what they want.” Staff were aware of the need to protect peoples privacy and ensure they received dignified care. A staff member told us, “During personal care we make sure they are well covered up, some people request gender specific staff for their care so we respect that and make sure they aren’t exposed with curtains and blind shut. Dignity is respected.”
People were involved in all aspects of their care and were able to raise any concerns they may have with the registered manager. Audits were carried out regularly to check the service people received, and learning processes were in place to drive continuous improvement. The culture at the home was positive, with the registered manager and staff ensuring people had care that met their individual needs, including taking account of protected characteristics. A staff member told us, “We make sure that everyone is treated equally, we make sure there's no discrimination.”
Some improvements were needed to how risks related to the environment were managed. For example, we observed staff not consistently securing areas which may pose a risk to people’s safety and there were concerns over the mechanisms in place to secure windows. The registered manager took immediate action to address this, and the provider sought prompt support to rectify the concerns.
People's experience of the service
Updated
15 May 2026
We spoke to people and their relatives about their experiences of care during the inspection, we observed the care people received in communal areas and used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Calls to relatives were made to gather their views following the inspection by an expert by experience.
People told us they felt safe at the service and shared examples of the support they received from staff. A person told us, “I feel safe, I am well looked after.” Relatives described how people were supported to get around safely, have enough to eat and drink, have their personal care needs met, and end of life care needs were considered and met. We saw people were supported in line with their risk assessments and care plans when having their meals, walking and having their health needs met. People told us they had the right support with their medicines when they needed them. Everyone we spoke with told us they had not experienced any falls or accidents as staff ensured they were kept safe.
People and relatives felt there were enough staff to support people. A person commented, “There are enough staff. There is always someone around. I have a buzzer but I just shout them and they come quite quickly.” Relatives also confirmed there were enough staff with a relative adding, “Staff always come quickly when they need to.” We saw people had their needs met promptly during the inspection. People did not have to wait for staff and staff were continually present and responsive to people’s needs. For example, a person asked a staff member for a tissue, this was provided immediately and another person asked for some toast, and this was immediately bought from the kitchen. We saw staff were consistently present in communal areas and engaged with people throughout the inspection.
People told us the staff knew them well, were kind, caring and were able to provide responsive care which met their individual needs and preferences. A person told us, “Staff are very kind and caring.” Another person told us how they were supported to meet religious needs. The person commented, “I do say a prayer. We have the church here, staff sort this for us and I enjoy that I join in, we sit in the other room and its lovely.” Relatives confirmed people were known well by the staff and they were given person-centred care. A relative said, “The staff know [person’s name] well, what they do and don’t like.” Observations showed staff knew people well. For example, we saw a staff member engaging in conversation with a person about their family members. This was a positive interaction which made the person smile and chat for a few minutes with the staff member.
People told us they had choice in all aspects of their lives and staff respected these choices. A person said, “I have choices, I can choose what to wear and eat.” Relatives confirmed they felt people were able to make all their own decisions about how they spent their time. A relative told us, “The staff get [person’s name] everything they want, they will ask for cup of tea.” We saw staff offered choices throughout the day and respected the decisions people made. People were offered choices in relation to meals, drinks, activities and how they spent their time and where they went during the inspection. Where people refused care, staff did not question this, they offered reassurance and said they would come back later, which they did. People were supported to maintain their independence. A person told us, “I do things myself, a lot of things, it’s important to me.” We saw staff respected this and encouraged people. A relative told us, “The staff always ask [person’s name] they never tell them. They encourage people which feels right. [Person’s name] is a new person since going into Richmond. They have put some weight on, are brighter and enjoying being there. I’m so grateful to the staff. I have my [relative’s title] back.”
People were complementary about the home and the staff. Everyone we spoke with shared positive experiences and comments. A person told us, “I love it here, I love everything, the building has character and the staff are marvellous.” Relatives also were consistently positive about the experience of the service. A relative told us, “I feel lucky to have found this place. They ask my opinion, I have to fill a form in every 3 months. The food and drink is very good, and they tell me what the doctor has said straight away and what medicine they prescribed.” All relatives we spoke with felt they could recommend the home, with 1 commenting, “I definitely would. The staff are all approachable and [person’s name] is never ignored. They are given the best of care.”