Richmond Village Letcombe Regis

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

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 were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People and staff were encouraged and supported to raise concerns, they felt confident they would be treated with compassion and understanding.

Staff told us they were updated about incidents and changes. Incidents and accidents were discussed in handovers, meetings and group supervisions.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The home worked with a number of professionals to ensure continuity of care within the home. The home had regular visits from the GP and made appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals.

Staff knew people and their risks well and told us how they worked with professionals to keep people safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe and were happy with their care. We were told, “The care they show makes me feel safe,” “I think safety is very important and they [staff] do their best to keep him [person] as safe as possible” and “I do feel safe.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

A risk management system was in place and risk assessments were held in care plans. These provided staff with guidance on how to manage the risk. For example, one person was at high risk of falls. Staff were guided to monitor the person, crash mats were in place to protect the person if they fell. One person told us, “Oh yes they [staff] all know to keep an eye on me as I’m susceptible to falling over.”

Another person was at risk of choking. Guidance had been provided by a speech and language therapist [SALT] which staff followed to ensure the person was sat upright using ‘appropriate supports to align their head and neck safely.’

Where appropriate, mental capacity assessments were in place to safeguard people’s rights in relation to decisions about any risks.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The home had fire safety equipment to meet standards and staff had completed the relevant fire training.

The home was clean and free from malodours and designed to be dementia friendly. The windows all had window restrictors in place, and signage helped people navigate around the home.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

One staff member said, “I think our staffing is good.” A nurse told us, “Providing no one goes sick at the last minute our staffing levels are fine.”

People told us there were enough staff. Their comments included, “We could always do with more [staff] but in general, it’s pretty good. It can seem a bit light at the weekends” and “Mostly alright. If they’re short staffed they don’t let it show to the residents [people].”

Throughout the inspection, we observed staff responded to people promptly and had time to interact with people whilst supporting them.
The provider had robust recruitment systems in place to ensure people were supported by well trained, experienced staff. Background checks were conducted to ensure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) during personal care. Staff understood the need to wear PPE and how to manage the risk of infection. Infection control policies were in place and up to date.

Cleaning schedules were in place and people’s rooms were maintained to a high standard. Toilets and bathrooms were clean and regularly checked.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicine as prescribed. Staff had been trained to administer medicines their competency to do so was regularly checked. Records confirmed any medicine errors were reported and investigated. One staff member told us, “We get checked regularly to ensure we are safe to administer medicine, and our systems work well.”

People’s medicines were regularly reviewed by the GP and regular audits monitored medicines to help the home manage medicines efficiently.