Richmond Village Letcombe Regis

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

The service was previously registered under a different provider. The previous rating for the service was requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has been changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider made sure people received person-centred care that was in line with their preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff and the management team knew people well and knew how they wanted to be supported.

People’s care plans were individualised and detailed how people wanted to be supported in line with their individual likes and dislikes. One person said, “I was involved in the care plan and yes, they [staff] do (follow it).” Another person told us, “One of the carers [staff] brought me a usb stick with my favourite African music on as she knows what I like.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received care and treatment in line with their assessed needs. Relatives said people had regular health checks and care reviews. A relative told us, “Continuity is pretty good. The staff take turns on where they work so there are always familiar faces.”

Staff worked closely with community health care providers and knew when to refer people for specialist care. They accessed support, advice and treatment for people from physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, chiropodists, and opticians.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service followed the principles of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) to identify, record, and meet the information and communication needs of people with a disability, impairment, and/or sensory loss. This ensured people were given information in a way they could understand.

People had person-centred care plans covering their communication needs. Information was shared with visiting health and social care professionals where necessary to ensure people could get the best out of medical and other appointments.

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.

People told us they knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to and were confident it would be taken seriously by the management. The service’s complaints policy was on display in the home. The complaints process included details of how to appeal a decision, contact details for the local government and social care ombudsman.

People told us they were listened to, and confident concerns would be dealt with. Their comments included, “I’d go to [staff name] and I feel I’d be absolutely listened to. We were concerned about some medication [person] was on, so we spoke to them about it and it was acted on straight away” and “I’d go to the manager, and I know it would be taken seriously as she’s very good.”

The provider made sure people could access the care and support they needed in a timely way. People’s care was planned in a way which worked for them, and which promoted dignity, equality, and human rights.

The provider used people’s feedback and other evidence to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination and having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics. The provider recognised potential discrimination and inequality and proactively addressed barriers to improve people’s experience of the service.

People’s religious and cultural needs were discussed at their initial assessments and recorded in their care plans. Religious and cultural activities were available throughout the year.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. For example, one person had detailed their future plans. This included funeral details, religious needs and family details.

People were able to discuss their preferences about the care they wished to receive towards the end of their lives. People’s wishes were respected if they chose not to discuss this aspect of their care.