Richmond House

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 service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated caring as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice. Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care and treatment through using tools that supported patients’ individual needs, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff supported patients to access other services when appropriate, this included healthcare services within the community and activities such as local dance classes and coffee mornings.

We spoke with all 5 patients at the service. All patients told us staff treated them well and were kind, they told us staff were good and provided a happy and supportive environment.

Staff developed therapeutic relationships with patients based on trust, compassion, and understanding. They demonstrated a strong awareness of individual needs, preferences, and personal histories, and communicated in ways patients could easily understand. Staff remained attentive, listened actively, and provided reassurance, encouragement, and emotional support when needed.

Throughout our assessment, staff consistently upheld patients’ privacy and dignity. The service promoted a culture of kindness, respect, and compassion, ensuring a consistently caring approach.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

The service’s design, layout and furnishings supported people’s care and treatment. For example, people had access to quiet areas for privacy, a therapy room, a well-equipped kitchen and a large lounge where groups could be held. The service had recently had a sensory room installed which patients told us they enjoyed using. The sensory room included changeable coloured lighting, water features, soft padded flooring, cushions and beanbags, and the provider said that they were going to install a music system. The room was not fully finished at the time of inspection, so patients had to be observed whilst using the room.

The service had 1 ground floor bedroom which could be accessed by a person with limited mobility.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. The information provided was in easy-read form, making it accessible to the patient group.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. Patients were supported to cook meals for the house 1 day per week. Patients we spoke with all said they enjoyed shopping to pick the ingredients and cooking with staff.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff empowered and supported patients to have as much choice and control over their care and treatment as possible. They involved patients in decisions always considering their capacity and legal status and supported patients to ensure they understood their rights.

Care plans set out current needs, promoted strategies and short-term goals to enhance independence, and demonstrated evidence of planning and consideration of longer-term goals of each person. People we spoke with told us they were supported to have choice and control over their own care and support.

Patients were supported to engage in the process of applying for positions of paid work within the service, for example working in the laundry room of another hospital site.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

Staff responded promptly and effectively to changes in patients need, concern, or distress. Staff knew patients well enough to identify changes in patient presentation or environmental dynamics and acted quickly to mitigate risk and safeguard wellbeing.

Patients felt confident approaching staff with issues or concerns, knowing they would be listened to and supported. Staff knew patients well enough to utilise de-escalation techniques specific to each patient when patients’ behaviours became heightened.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls and care planned for these accordingly. For example, a patient who had anxiety concerns around walking down stairs had this as part of their risk assessment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Leaders fostered a culture where staff felt valued, supported, and able to speak openly. Staff described leaders as available and approachable and said they felt respected, positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service.