Richard House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we did not rate this question. At this assessment, this question was rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff knew people well and had good understanding of how to meet people’s individual needs. Staff worked in partnership with people and their relatives to ensure care provided was tailored to each individual person. People, and their relatives spoke positively about care and support received which was tailored to their unique and individual needs. However, people’s care plans were not always personalised and comprehensive. For example, some care plans lacked information about people’s choices and their preferences. We told the provider about this, and this was included as an action in their ongoing improvement plan. Details of care and support provided to people were recorded using electronic notes. However, these were mostly task based and low in details. The registered managed was aware of this and this was addressed with staff.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People and their relatives told us, they received support from relevant professionals when needed. One relative told, us about staff supporting their loved in arranging medical appointments and ensuring medical advice was followed, “My loved one could not eat before the appointment and staff were lovely with them, reminding them and giving reassurance.”

The provider collaborated with several stakeholders and partners, and we received positive feedback from the ones we spoke with. One stakeholder told us, “I have no concerns about the home. They are very open and transparent in the way they work with us.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There were processes and procedures in place to support people’s individual communication needs.

People’s communication needs were outlined in their care plans.

Staff had a good understanding of meeting people’s communication needs. One person told us, how staff suggested and arranged for them to receive books in audio format.

Some people told us, they experienced difficulties in communicating with staff when English wasn’t their first language. One person told us, “I did ask for something, but staff did not understand what it was, even when I tried to explain it.” We told the registered manager about this, who was aware of the concern and had discussed it with staff.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives were provided with opportunities to speak up and share their feedback. We saw evidence of care reviews and meetings taking place. People and their relatives felt comfortable in raising issues and knew who to speak to. One relative told us, “I don’t have any complaints but if there was anything I would speak to the manager.”

The provider had a complaints procedures in place and people were encouraged to provide feedback and use,” You said, we did” forms to record any changes made as a result of people’s comments.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff enabled people to seek support and advice from other services such as physiotherapist, District Nurses the local pharmacy or a dentist. One person told us, “Staff went with me in a taxi to see the dentist.” One relative told us, “My loved one had physio arranged when they needed it.”

The provider worked closely with the local GP practice and the GP visited the home weekly. People could request an appointment when needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider worked closely with other professionals to meet outcomes for people. We received positive feedback from stakeholders and partners collaborating with the provider. One stakeholder told us, “We visited the service recently and had no concerns.”

The provider encouraged and supported people to give feedback on their experiences and listened to them. For example, there were changes made to the menu based on the feedback received during one of the meetings. One relative told us, their loved one did not want one staff member supporting them and this was addressed promptly by the registered manager.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported people to make decisions about their future care and plans. This involved decisions regarding the support required at the end of their lives. This information was included in people’s care plans. However, some of the care plans were more comprehensive than others. We told the registered manager about this who included this as an action in their ongoing improvement plan.

We received positive comments from stakeholders regarding end-of-life care provided to people. One stakeholder told us, “Staff provide good end of life care to people. Recently they lost two residents, and staff were compassionate and kind in the way they were speaking about people.”