Richmond Residential Care Home

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 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 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.

Leaders shared a passion and commitment to improving the lives of the people they were working with, and this was demonstrated in their actions and interactions with people, relatives, colleagues and partners. Staff and leaders were observed working as a team, sharing information and supporting each other to complete care tasks for people.

The provider’s website explained the aims and values of the service so that members of the public could access this information, and policies and procedures were on display in corridors of the care home.

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, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders were knowledgeable about people and their care needs and were able to answer any questions that we had. We observed warm and friendly interactions between leaders, people and staff. This showed that leaders were approachable and led by example by being involved with people and day to day life at the home.

The registered manager told us they arrive at the service early each morning to prepare porridge and make tea for people. They explained that sharing breakfast and spending time chatting with people provided valuable opportunities to get to know them and identify any changes in their wellbeing or support needs. The registered manager said, “I know if people are having a good day or a bad day, and whether their needs have changed.”

Other members of the leadership team were also actively involved in the day-to-day delivery of care and had extensive experience in providing personal care. This demonstrated that leaders maintained a visible and approachable presence within the service, understood the challenges staff faced, and were able to foster positive relationships with people using the service and their relatives.

Relatives provided mixed feedback about the provider’s leadership team. One relative told us, “I have confidence in them and the manager helped me with the bank and resolved an issue for my relative. They are a nice person and always offer for me to come into the office. They are there when you need them.” Another relative said, “They sort things out, but sometimes they don’t listen and can be defensive.”

Although some relatives expressed concerns about the approachability of leaders, we found evidence that appropriate processes were in place to ensure concerns were considered, investigated and responded to objectively.

.

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

There was a clear policy which explained to staff how they could speak up and raise concerns both internally and externally. The policy was on display in the entrance hall of the building.

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.

Policies and procedures were informed by legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, and individual policies such as the recruitment policy contained sections on equality and diversity.

Leaders told us that they felt supported by the provider. Staff told us that they felt supported by their line managers and colleagues, with staff also saying they felt part of a team. There was recognition for staff members who had performed well in the form of gifts and employee of the month schemes. One staff member told us that the provider had been supportive of them when they had gone on maternity leave.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Leaders led from the front and spent time with people and staff. This meant that all staff respected each other and worked as a team. It promoted a culture of sharing responsibility and ensured that leaders understood the everyday challenges of the service.

The electronic care plan system allowed staff to record information about people’s care in detail and also allowed leaders to analyse this data to identify any themes and trends. The provider had a robust auditing process, with regular audits of key aspects of the running of the care home such as infection control, medication, care plans, night shifts and health and safety. The number of audits showed that the provider took governance seriously and had systems in place to monitor and control safety and quality.

The level of knowledge, skills and experience among the staff group at all levels meant that the service was not overly reliant on any one individual member of staff to lead. This ensured continuity if some of the leaders were on leave.

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.

The provider had links with local community services. For example, children from a local nursery regularly visited the care home to interact with people living there and take part in group activities. People from the care home travelled to a nearby school where they partook in activities as part of an organised community fun day. Other regular trips included visits to garden centres and local cafes.

Leaders knew local healthcare services well and made referrals to them when this was required. Leaders participated in regular reviews of people’s health and wellbeing with the GP. There was regular communication which was recorded in people’s care records.

A professional who supported several people from the care home told us, “Other colleagues can’t sing their praises enough, and the registered manager is very good at communicating with us”.

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

Leaders used supervisions and appraisals as opportunities for learning, with staff being asked to reflect on their practice and identify positives and areas of their care that could be improved upon. An atmosphere of trust and respect between leaders and staff allowed an environment where learning was possible.

Systems were established to support learning, improvement, and innovation across the service. Team meetings were held regularly, with leaders using these forums to share learning and engage staff in discussions about service development. Regular meetings for people and their relatives were also conducted, providing opportunities for feedback and encouraging suggestions to enhance the quality of care and support provided.

Surveys were distributed to people using the service, their relatives, and staff, allowing them to provide feedback anonymously. The feedback was reviewed and used to develop action plans where areas for improvement were identified. For example, feedback from relatives received earlier in 2026 highlighted that some of the toilet and bathroom facilities were outdated and in need of refurbishment. During our visit in August 2026, we observed that a new wet room was under construction, with further plans in place to renovate and improve existing bathroom facilities. This demonstrated that the provider valued feedback and used it to drive improvements and enhance the service where required.