Richmond Village Coventry DCA

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 68 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There was a positive culture in the service. People told us staff recognised their limitations and they received care and support the way they preferred.

Staff highlighted training and development were a priority, as the registered manager aimed to maintain high standards of care. Regular staff meetings took place where the providers’ values could be discussed and reinforced. Staff spoke positively of the culture in the service. Comments included, “I love working here. We are a great team, managers, seniors (senior care staff) and carers. Our focus is our residents. The residents get brilliant care. I wouldn’t work here otherwise,” and “I love my job and what we do for the residents. It’s a great place to work.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, experience and credibility to lead effectively but out of hours arrangements needed review.

The service was managed by a registered manager and deputy manager, both of whom were experienced and demonstrated a good understanding of people’s assessed needs. We identified there was no formal on-call arrangement to ensure staff were clear about who they could contact when management staff were not working. This included, for example, out of hours. Despite this, staff told us they would contact the registered manager if needed and the registered manager confirmed this happened. They told us this arrangement would be reviewed so that it was formalised.

The registered manager was committed to providing a high standard of care, which was evident from the positive feedback received from staff and people who used the service. At the time of this assessment the registered manager was not providing specific support for people with a learning disability or autistic people. However, the registered manager ensured staff had received the necessary training, skills and competence to support this group of people.

Staff spoke positively of their leaders. One told us, “I have never had any issues with our manager. You can go and talk about anything. [Registered manager’s] door is always open.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

People told us they knew who the registered manager was and would approach them if they needed to. One person told us, “I know the manager. I could see her if I wanted to or phone her and she would come to me.”

Staff told us they felt confident to raise any issues they had with the registered manager who was responsive to their needs. Processes were in place to support staff to speak up with any concerns and make suggestions for improving care. This included staff meetings and staff supervision meetings. A staff member told us, “I do feel I could speak up if I had a concern and I know I would be listened too. We can use the ‘speak up’ policy if we had to, though I am 100% confident the manager would deal with any issues.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

People felt at ease to approach the registered manager or the office if they needed anything. One person said, “Office staff are always available. Approachable, lovely, helpful. They sort out any problems.”

Records shared with us by the registered manager explained how they supported equality and diversity to ensure staff worked in an inclusive environment. They stated, “We focus on promoting a positive working environment and a diverse and inclusive culture. As part of our documentation, we always ask people how they identify, including pronouns they prefer, and we respect their wishes. We respect individual’s preferences when it comes to identity labels. Very recently we have changed staff name badges, affording the opportunity to include pronouns if they wished.”

Staff completed training on equality and diversity to help them understand how to work in an inclusive workplace. The registered manager told us staff were subject to annual competency assessments to support them in embedding the principles of equality and diversity. One staff member said they felt included in the service because their views were listened to. They told us, “I speak with the manager on a daily basis to share feedback and talk about what’s happening or things I think we could change, do differently like changing the schedule (staff calls rota). [Registered manager] puts her trust in us to relay what is working well and what needs to change. [Registered manager] is always very positive about ideas and ways to make improvements.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and systems to support good governance. They used these to help deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. Information was not always clear to confirm risk, performance and outcomes for those people receiving the regulated activity of personal care.

Quality satisfaction surveys had been completed but it was not possible confirm the results related to people who received the regulated activity of personal care. We only inspect services providing a regulated activity such as personal care. However, those surveys completed showed positive feedback. The registered manager told us they would review this with the provider.

People and relatives felt the service was well managed. All the relatives spoken with knew the registered manager and said they were approachable and accessible. They thought they were listened to and the service was responsive and helpful.

The registered manager and deputy manager demonstrated a strong understanding of their roles and responsibilities. They were able to show systems and practices that promoted good governance. The registered manager routinely monitored the staff training matrix to ensure all staff maintained up-to-date training. They also reviewed care plans and risk assessments to ensure care delivery remained appropriate to people’s current needs and we saw evidence of this.

Staff told us they felt well supported in their roles and confirmed they received adequate training to deliver a safe and effective service.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Relatives described partnership working through regular and effective communication. All relatives knew the registered manager by name. The registered manager had completed needs assessments and formulated people’s care plans with relatives where appropriate. They had followed up with reviews of people’s care and completed quality checks at regular intervals.

The registered manager liaised with other health and social care professionals when needed to ensure people's needs were met or where there were concerns about their health.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Staff completed regular training, so they kept up to date with effective ways of working and delivering care. The provider had invited staff to complete satisfaction surveys to help identify where improvements may be needed across the service. Survey responses showed a high level of staff satisfaction with some suggestions made. The provider had acknowledged the suggestions and had responded to them to help improve the service. Learning had been taken from them. For example, some staff had struggled with the new electronic systems the provider had implemented. The provider in response had agreed to arrange for a ‘champion’ of the systems to be made available to support staff. Staff spoken with confirmed they could access support.

The managers knew how to allocate care calls, review and update records to make sure their quality assurance systems were effective and robust. Following our inspection feedback, the registered manager assured us some further improvements had been implemented.