Richmond Court

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People's needs were assessed before they moved into the service to make sure staff could provide the care and support they needed. This assessment considered how people wanted to be supported and any needs in relation to culture, religion or ethnicity. Care and support were reviewed on a regular basis.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff knew people well and understood their needs and preferences. A comprehensive training package meant staff knowledge was up to date and in line with good practice and standards. Mandatory training covered key areas such as learning disabilities, autism, fire safety and equality and diversity.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

A health professional said, “It is evident that staff consistently demonstrate compassion, patience and dedication in supporting residents, ensuring their dignity and wellbeing are always at the forefront of care…The home always work with district nursing team, collaborating and working together to provide holistic care to the individuals within their care.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of people’s individual health needs, but care records were not always consistent to enable accurate monitoring, for example, where people needed their food intake, oral health needs or continence needs monitoring. When we spoke with the management team about this, they said they would improve this.

Staff supported people to access healthcare professionals to manage their general health. The service made referrals to appropriate health and social care services when people’s needs changed and any recommendations were mostly acted upon.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. The service was working within the principles of the MCA and DoLS applications were applied for and managed appropriately. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place in relation to specific decisions, such as the use of equipment to keep people safe and covert medicine administration.