Richardson Duston Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always respect people’s privacy and dignity.

Although we observed positive relationships and interactions between people and staff, we did observe occasions where privacy and dignity were not upheld, and staff were answering their mobile phones whilst providing personal care to people using the service. Staff knew the people using the service well, and we observed on multiple occasions, staff responding to people who were in, or approaching a state of emotional distress with compassion and kindness. The practices used were in line with people’s care plans and risk assessments.

There was a warm and friendly atmosphere at the home, and the care observed was person centred. Relatives told us they always felt welcome.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People using the service are offered personalised activities, and some had timetables and planners which were created with their involvement. People had individual communication tools and plans which staff used to support them to make day to day choices.

People’s bedrooms were personalised and reflected their interests and personalities. There was a sensory room for people who enjoyed sensory activities.

Where people needed staff to anticipate their needs, staff used prior knowledge of the person to support them to try new things, using their reactions and engagement to inform future choices and activities.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were encouraged to maintain and develop independence, in relation to day-to-day decisions, and where possible, larger life changing decisions. One person told us, “I get to choose what I do and what I eat.” Staff were knowledgeable about how to maximise choice and independence, depending on different people’s capabilities and capacity to do so. One staff told us, “Some people can choose their outfits for the day themselves, whereas others need some assistance, to encourage choice. We lay out a few outfits for them to indicate which they would like to wear.” They also told us that when people went out, they would interact independently where possible with the public, such as cashiers, and that staff would only get involved if people requested their input and support.

We found that the provider had relevant policies and processes in place which encouraged independence such as personal relationships and sexual safety. Relatives told us that they never encountered any problems when visiting people, or arranging for people to visit them, and they felt encouraged to do so.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Some people using the service needed staff to anticipate some of their needs, but wherever possible, work was done to establish key cues and different methods of communication people displayed to communicate a need. Staff had good knowledge of different communication styles, and actions or signs people displayed. They were able to interpret these well and respond effectively.

We observed appropriate responses to people in distress at the service, and found staff and leaders knew what would work best for each person using the service.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us that they felt supported, and that their wellbeing was important to the provider. There was a good level of staffing at the service, and staff therefore felt their workload was manageable.

Staff were asked to complete a survey once a year and they felt able to share ideas and concerns at staff team meetings. Staff told us they felt valued and there was opportunity to earn awards, including certificates of recognition for long term service.

Some staff said there was sometimes a delay in leaders responding to concerns or ideas they had shared; however, they acknowledged where there was immediate attention and action needed, this was done promptly by leaders.