Richmond Village Coventry DCA

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Following an initial assessment of people’s needs when they started to use the service, regular reviews took place to ensure the service continued to meet their needs effectively. One person told us, “Yes, I was asked what I needed. I was aided by my family.” Another stated, “I was quite aware of my needs. They came in and discussed it with me.”

A staff member told us, “Our managers go out and do an assessment before a new person starts to use the service. They fill out all the information on the electronic system like risk assessments and care plans. We have basic information before we go into do a first call and then we spend time getting to know more about the resident, what they need and how they like things done. The seniors (staff members) add to the care plans. Any update is recorded on the handover (record), so we know we need to double check the system.”

Care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences and records showed these were regularly reviewed.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with how the provider supported people. One person told us, “I am involved in my care plan. Every 3 months someone comes and goes through everything.”

Staff provided care in accordance with people’s recognised needs. One staff member said, “Everyone has a care plan telling us how we need to do the care call. We get more training if the resident has a particular need like a catheter.”

Risk assessments had been devised based on good practice standards to ensure people were supported with effective care and treatment. For example, 1 person could not tolerate a normal diet and needed pureed meals. Care records provided detailed information about the food preparation and the need for a pureed diet to be provided.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Some attention was needed to processes.

Staff communicated with one another using the electronic systems to ensure any updates relating to people's needs were shared without delay. Where needed, referrals were made to other agencies for support. For example, they liaised with district nurses’ doctors and occupational therapists for support and guidance to meet people’s needs.

Staff told us, “We are a brilliant team. We all pull together to do the best for the residents” and “Communication is key. We have phones so we can call each other if we need any help and we have a WhatsApp group, so you are always up-to-date even if you’re not at work.” However, we identified the use of the WhatsApp group needed a review to ensure this was sufficiently secure and met the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The registered manager gave assurances this would be addressed as a priority.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People’s care calls were provided by a small, stable core group of staff who knew them well. This enabled staff to quickly identify if a person was unwell or not themselves.

People were supported to access health professionals if needed and some people were able to independently contact them if they needed to. One person said, “I contracted (infection) and they (staff) were very helpful. They took a photo (of the persons skin) and sent it to GP.”

People at Richmond Village were able to use the communal facilities of the village and participate in the social activities provided in the care home which helped to maintain their wellbeing. People spoke positively about accessing these. One person said, “I help to organise the choir and play the piano. I only have to ask, and someone will come and take me over there.” Another person said, “There is plenty to do at night.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

When people’s needs were assessed, it was agreed how many care calls people would need in regards to staff support to provide care and monitor their health conditions.

The service used electronic systems for their care plans and care monitoring to ensure calls were completed on time and people received calls to support them at the agreed times. The deputy manager explained how ‘red flags’ appeared on the system to alert or prompt staff if care was imminently due and had not been provided. Staff were able to see these flags on the electronic devices they used which helped to prompt them to ensure the care was provided. This included any calls to monitor people’s healthcare needs and provide care such as repositioning a person in bed or checking their skin for any red areas.

Staff told us how the service could be flexible if people’s needs changed. One staff member said, “We are very accessible to people and families because we are on site. This gives us lots of opportunity to check how things are going and to make changes if they are needed. So, if something isn’t working or isn’t quite what the resident wants of needs, we change it.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and processes were in place to help ensure these were respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

When people started to use the service, they signed consent forms to confirm their agreement to care and the sharing of their information. Where people could not consent, family members were identified who had obtained the necessary authorisations to make decisions on people’s behalf. This included financial decisions. In some cases, signatures on forms were unclear and it was not clear what relationship the family member was in regards to the person. This was important to demonstrate decisions were being made by the authorised person. The registered manager said this would be reviewed.

People told us staff always sought their consent before providing care. Comments included, “Yes (they do ask for consent). They will say how are you today? What shall we do first?” and “Yes, they do (ask for consent), they are very polite and well mannered.”

Staff knew to ask people for consent before providing care. One staff member said, “You have to remember you are entering their home you have to be respectful and ask permission not only to enter but before you start doing anything.”