You are here

Archived: Richmond House

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 April 2013
Date of Publication: 22 May 2013
Inspection Report published 22 May 2013 PDF | 80.26 KB

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 16 April 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

During our inspection we spoke with the manager, three people who lived at Richmond House, three members of staff, and two relatives who were contacted after the inspection. People who lived at the home told us the home was "nice” and one relative said “I couldn’t wish for a better place”.

We observed staff talking with the people that were in the home in a respectful manner and gave the people who lived at Richmond House time to express themselves. One member of staff told us they had been able to develop good relationships with the individuals that lived at the home.

We observed staff support people when they returned home on the day of the inspection. One person told us the staff “help you to cook”. The manager explained that the people who lived at Richmond House had decided to share responsibilities for cooking the evening meals. This had been respected and we saw a menu plan in the kitchen which identified who would be cooking on a specific day.

One member of staff we spoke with explained that they felt it was important to respect the privacy and choices people made regarding their bedrooms. Each person had been asked if staff were able to enter their room when the person was out. The people who lived at Richmond House had also been asked if they would like support keeping their rooms clean and tidy. The signed consent forms were held in the person’s care plan and had been signed by the person and a member of staff.

One person invited us to see their bedroom, the new furniture had been chosen by the person who told us where they had purchased it from. One relative felt the recent improvements to the person’s bedroom had made a “huge difference” to the person. We looked at all of the bedrooms and saw that all of the rooms were individually personalised to varying degrees.

During our inspection people spent time in the lounge, kitchen and/or in their bedrooms. We observed people had keys to the main door. This indicated people felt at ease in the home and there were no restrictive routines.

During the inspection the manager explained that people who lived at the home were able to go on holiday and staff supported this. On the day of inspection we were told that one person was on holiday in a location they had chosen. We spoke with the person’s relative after the inspection and they stated that the person was “really enjoying” their holiday. One person who was in the home told us they had been to a holiday park and picked up a leaflet so as they could decide if that was were they wanted to spend their time.