Richmond Residential Care Home

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.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were detailed and contained lots of information about the person’s personal preferences as well as key information about how to keep them safe. This meant that new staff could read people’s care plans and have a good idea about how the person wished to be cared for.

Staff and leaders were observed treating people as individuals and tailoring their approach to suit the wishes of each individual. For example, staff were observed asking people which chair they wanted to sit in in the communal area, and asking people if they wanted to participate in a communal activity. Those who did not want to participate in communal activities were offered individual activities such as board games.

Staff and leaders received training in 'Promoting Dignity and Person-Centred Support in Health and Social Care'. This showed the provider had provided training to embed person-centred approaches across the service.

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.

Staff and leaders received a training program on subjects such as dementia, Parkinson’s’ disease, epilepsy, diabetes and dementia. This showed that the provider understood the need for staff to receive training on a wide range of health conditions in order to understand people’s diverse needs. Or- Staff and leaders received training on subjects such as dementia, Parkinson's disease, epilepsy and diabetes. This showed that the provider was committed to ensuring staff had up-to-date knowledge and skills to understand and respond to people's diverse need

The provider made appropriate referrals and involved other services where this was needed. Records showed that the provider were proactive in making referrals and calling upon the expertise of a variety of health professionals, such as community mental health teams, GPs, district nursing teams and dementia outreach teams. Advice given by health professionals was referenced in care plans and used to form staff’s approach to delivering care to that person.

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

Signs and noticeboards were put up on the walls throughout the building. Information on policies and procedures, feedback and how to make a complaint were displayed clearly, which meant that visitors were able to access this information without having to ask staff for it.

People and relatives were kept up to date with developments in their own care and support and were given wider updates about the home. In addition to verbal communication, newsletters, resident and family meetings and social events were used to provide information. Relatives received telephone or email updates if they were unable to visit in person, and in the event of any important developments in people’s care.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a Quality Management Policy which included details on how complaints would be received and dealt with. We looked at recent complaints which showed that there was a clear process for investigating complaints, providing an objective response, and learning from any concerns that were identified.

Compliments were recorded centrally and displayed on walls in the entrance hall. The provider asked people, relatives and staff to complete anonymous surveys which were used to gather feedback on the performance of the service and identify any issues. A “You said, we did” board was displayed next to the manager’s office which advised people of changes that the provider had made in response to feedback they had received.

Relatives expressed differing views regarding their involvement in care planning and reviews. One relative reported positive involvement, stating, “I have seen their care plan and we sat down with the carer to complete it.” In contrast, another relative felt less involved, commenting, “My relative has had no formal reviews. We are requesting reviews and they are aware that we want to be involved.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were given equal consideration regardless of their needs and activities were adapted so that everyone was able to take part in their own way.

The provider enabled people to access a range of community activities and day trips, taking steps to ensure venues and transport were accessible and met individual needs. For example, adapted transport was arranged for people with reduced mobility, and destinations were selected with appropriate accessible facilities. Relatives were invited to accompany people on outings, helping them to enjoy activities alongside those they knew well and fostering opportunities to create positive shared memories.

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

We spoke to the activities coordinator who told us that at lunchtime they take meals to people who choose to eat in their rooms. They advised that they do this so that they can have a chat with people who may feel more isolated as they are not accessing communal areas. The activities coordinator told us that on one occasion when they were unable to do this because they were on holiday, they visited a person in their room on their first day back who said, “I missed you visiting me at lunchtime”. This showed that the activities coordinator was thinking about ways to improve experiences and outcomes for people who were unwilling or unable to access activities in communal areas.

One relative told us, “They have helped my relative to walk again and the staff actively encourage them to walk”. This showed that the provider worked with people to try and improve their experience and outcomes.

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.

Each person’s care plan included clear information about their wishes and preferences should they require emergency medical treatment, including decisions relating to resuscitation. Where a person was unable to make or communicate these decisions, a mental capacity assessment had been completed and decisions were made in their best interests, with appropriate involvement from relatives and healthcare professionals.

Information regarding people’s end-of-life wishes and preferences, as well as arrangements following their death, was recorded clearly, comprehensively, and with sensitivity.