You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 December 2017

This inspection was carried out on 21 November 2017 and was unannounced. At their last inspection on 25 April 2017, they were found to not be meeting the standards we inspected. This was in relation to staffing.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions is the service safe, effective, responsive and well led to at least good. At this inspection we found that they had made the required improvements and were meeting all the standards.

Richard Cox House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service accommodates up to 29 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection there were 29 people living there.

The service had a manager who was in the process of becoming registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and staff were positive about the running of the home. Their views were sought and they were consulted in relation to the running of the home.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the home, listen to people and value staff. There was a complaint’s process which people knew how to use and were confident they would be acted upon.

People were supported in a safe way and staff knew how to recognise and report any risks to people’s safety. Medicines were administered in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions.

The manager planned for sufficient staff who were recruited safely and people told us that their needs were met appropriately. We found that staff were trained and felt supported.

People were encouraged and supported to make choices and staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There was a variety of food available and people were supported to live a healthy and balanced life.

People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness. We found that people were supported in accordance with their preferences and wishes and that confidentiality was promoted.

People received person centred care and enjoyed activities provided and they were involved in planning their care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 December 2017

The service was safe.

People were supported in a safe way.

Staff knew how to recognise and report any risks to people’s safety.

The manager planned for sufficient staff who were recruited safely.

Medicines were administered in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 December 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were well trained and supported.

People were encouraged and supported to make choices and staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People enjoyed a variety of food and were supported to live a healthy and balanced life.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 December 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness.

People were supported in accordance with their preferences and wishes.

Confidentiality was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People received person centred care and enjoyed activities provided.

People were involved in planning their care.

There was a complaint’s process which people knew how to use and were confident they would be acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 December 2017

The service was well led.

People and staff were positive about the running of the home.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the home, listen to people and value staff.

People’s views were sought and consulted in relation to the running of the home.