Richmond House

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated responsive as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients did not have to stay in hospital when they were well enough to leave. The design, layout, and furnishings of the ward supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

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 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.

People told us they felt involved in decisions about their care. Staff described using clear communication methods and accessible materials, such as easy-read formats, to ensure patients understood their care and treatment options.

Systems were in place to ensure joint decision-making between staff and patients, with care plans reflecting patients physical, mental and social needs. Staff we spoke with told us they regularly involved patients and their families, using person-centred approaches consistently. We observed staff responding promptly and respectfully to patients’ needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff ensured that patients had access to education and work opportunities. For example, working at a local farm and working in the laundry room at another hospital run by the provider. Patients also volunteered at local food banks. Patients had the opportunity to access weekly education sessions focusing on maths, English and budgeting and vocational qualifications in activities such as cooking, gardening and laundry care.

The multidisciplinary team involved the patient and community teams to ensure a smooth transition between services. Patients we spoke with, told us confidently about their discharge plans. Patients also attended a ‘life after Richmond’ group and had one to one sessions with the senior occupational therapist prior to discharge.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Family and carer contact was facilitated flexibly and effectively, including using video calls.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Records were maintained in line with the providers policies and procedures, ensuring personal information was securely safeguarded.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. Staff provided information in accessible formats to meet patients’ communication needs. Individual communication requirements were clearly recorded in patients’ care plans and regularly reviewed by a multidisciplinary team to ensure they remained appropriate.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Richmond House had 1 complaint raised in the 12 months leading up to inspection. The complaint was investigated fully; feedback was given to the patient who raised the complaint, and changes were implemented as a result.

Patents had the opportunity to raise complaints through several routes. When the service received feedback, it was discussed with the patients in their weekly ward meeting. It was then discussed in the provider led monthly patient safety meeting (which had representation from all sites), which fed into the same month’s clinical governance meeting.

An action plan was collated from feedback within each of the forums and added to the site improvement plan for Richmond House.

The provider shared friends and family booklets annually which contained information related to raising complaints or compliments.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured patients could access care, treatment, and support tailored to their individual needs. Through effective assessment processes, staff identified and removed barriers to care, particularly for individuals with complex needs, enduring mental illness, or protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients – for example, occupational therapists completed assessments and recommended adaptations required, which the service implemented.

Patients had access to both bath and wet room facilities.

The service used hazard tape around the ward to identify areas of potential trips and falls.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the service quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care managers and care co-ordinators. Three of the patients in treatment at the time of inspection had a discharge plan in place, all 3 patients knew about and understood their discharge pathway.

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

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Patients had daily community meetings to discuss any issues or concerns and to discuss daily activities. Patients were also invited to sit on interview panels.

The service had clear policies aligned with equality, diversity, and inclusion principles to prevent disadvantage and promote fairness for all, including those with protected characteristics. Overall, 100% of staff had completed mandatory training in diversity and inclusion.

Although there was limited diversity within the patient group, staff remained aware of individual needs and made reasonable adjustments where necessary, such as providing accessible information when needed. Staff worked proactively to ensure care was equitable and responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.