You are here

Archived: The Richardson Mews Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 17 January 2018

During a routine inspection

The Richardson Mews is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The Richardson Mews is registered to accommodate 25 people with degenerative conditions and brain acquired injuries; at the time of our inspection, there were 19 people living in the home.

At the last inspection, this service was rated good. At this inspection, we found the service remained good. The inspection took place on the 17 and 19 January 2018 and was unannounced.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People’s individuality was respected and people continued to be treated with empathy and kindness. The staff were friendly, caring and compassionate. Positive therapeutic relationships had been developed between the people and staff.

Detailed personalised care plans were in place, which enabled staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences, choices and needs. End of life wishes were discussed and plans put in place.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective and positive outcomes for people were being achieved. Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles. Development of staff knowledge and skills was encouraged. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition and reach their full potential.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice. There was a variety of activities available for people to participate in, individually or as a group. Family and friends were welcomed and supported.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The provider was committed to develop the service and actively looked at ways to continuously improve the service. There were effective quality assurance systems and audits in place; action was taken to address any shortfalls.

People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

Inspection carried out on 11 January 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 11 January 2016 and was unannounced. The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to 25 people who require personal. The service caters for people with degenerative conditions and acquired brain injury. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people living there.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Systems were in place to ensure people were protected from abuse; staff had received training and were aware of their responsibilities in raising any concerns about people’s welfare. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The provider had robust recruitment systems in place; which included appropriate checks on the suitability of new staff to work in the home. Staff received thorough induction training to ensure they had the skills to fulfil their roles and responsibilities. There were enough suitably skilled staff available to meet people’s needs.

People’s care was planned to ensure they received the individual support that they required to maintain their health, safety, independence, mobility and nutrition. People received support that maintained their privacy and dignity and systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines as and when they required them. People had opportunities to participate in the organised activities that were taking place in the home and were able to be involved in making decisions about their care.

There was a stable management team and effective systems in place to assess the quality of service provided.

Inspection carried out on 27 August 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We conducted a scheduled inspection on the 1 July 2013 and found that the provider was not meeting standard 9 relating to the management of medicines. We asked the provider to make improvements in the way medication was managed at The Richardson Mews.

The provider sent us an action plan telling us about the action they had taken to make improvements. We conducted a further inspection on the 27 August 2013 to review the improvements to the medication systems. We concluded that the provider had taken appropriate action to ensure that medication systems were safe and effective.

Inspection carried out on 1 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people during our inspection at The Richardson Mews, one person said �the staff are very good, they know how I need to be supported; they always discuss the options with me so that I can make my own decisions about my care�.

Another person said �I am chuffed to be here, it�s much better than the other places that I have been in. I feel safe and I know that my belongings are safe here too�. Another person told us �I have no concerns at all, the staff know how I need to be cared for and I am involved in all of the decisions about my care and my life here�.

One person said �the recruitment of staff must be very good here even the new staff seemed to know how I needed to be supported when they first cared for me�. Another person said �I feel safe here, the staff are very good, they always respect my privacy and treat me well�.

People told us they knew how to complain if they needed to. One person said �if anything goes wrong the staff are always quick to put it right�.

However we found that the provider was not meeting the essential standard of quality and safety in relation to the management of medicines.

Inspection carried out on 10 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people during our visit to The Richardson Mews; one person told us that they were very happy living there. They also told us that they were involved in the planning and review of their care. They explained how they had set their own personal development goals and were being supported to achieve them.

Another person told us how they had been supported to be involved in decisions about their care and treatment. They also told us that the management had been responsive to their requests regarding their care.

People also told us how they had been involved in decision about the running of the home which included planning the menus and activities.

One of the people we spoke with told us they were well looked after and that the staff knew their care needs and how they wished to be supported. Another person commented that the care provided there was better than they had experienced elsewhere.

People we spoke with told us they were comfortable living at The Richardson Mews and that the staff were nice to them. They told us that they felt safe and knew how to raise any concerns should they need to do so.

One of the people we spoke with told us that they felt able to raise their concerns and had confidence that these would be addressed by the management.