Richmond Village Aston on Trent DCA Also known as Richmond Retirement Village

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.

The provider ensured care was personalized to each person’s needs and preferences and these were detailed. Care plans contained individualized information about people which included their life history, interests and reflecting on their needs and preferences. People received person-centred care and were supported to make choices. A relative told us, “The staff know that my [relative] likes their fashion and clothes and that this is important to them. They [staff] organise the clothes, so that [relatives] knows where things are. They encourage [relative] to make individual choices.”

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.

The registered manager and staff team worked together with professionals across health and social care to provide coordinated and quality care for the people they supported. For example, one person’s care records detailed actions for staff to follow if there were concerns about the person’s condition by communicating with the GP for advice and support. A staff member told us, “If a person has had a fall and they are on blood thinners I would call 999.”

A professional confirmed that “Communication with staff was clear and timely, with the team showing a genuine commitment to supporting people effectively.”

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

People’s communication needs were identified and recorded in their care plans and staff knew about people’s communication needs. A staff member said, “There are some service users with hearing aids, we make sure batteries are working, listen to the person, talk slowly and speak clearly.”

Monthly newsletters were also published to make sure people were kept connected and updated with information such as safety alerts, staff changes, activities and upcoming events. The ‘Domiciliary Care A guide to our services’ contained information on the type of care and support which was available to people.

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.

Feedback was received from people and relatives on the quality of the care and service provided. People commented, “I receive an annual feedback form, which can be completed anonymously” and “We have a monthly meeting which is useful, you can ask anything here.” People were able to meet the registered manager and staff informally via the monthly ‘Meet the Dom Care Team,’ which gave them the opportunity to give feedback and get to know the team.

The provider had a complaints policy in place and had oversight of any complaints ensuring they were investigated with actions taken as required to improve outcomes. A complaints leaflet was available on how to make a complaint. People and relatives knew how to make a complaint and felt able to raise concerns and felt they would be listened to. A relative told us, “I have not had any real concerns, but when there was an incident, it was managed very well and not brushed under the carpet.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider had systems in place to ensure people had access to medical support. People had access to healthcare professionals such as a GP or when emergency healthcare was needed.

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.

The provider ensured people they supported were treated fairly and not discriminated against. Leaders and staff understood how to recognize discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage individuals. There were policies to promote equality and diversity to ensure people did not experience discrimination or inequality in how they were supported.

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.

At the time of the inspection no one at the service was receiving end of life care. Care records we reviewed included sensitive information around people’s end of life care wishes, outlining how people would want to be supported at the end of their lives when required.

Policies and procedures were in place to support the delivery of good end of life care. Some staff had undertaken ‘Intermediate End of Life Care training’ and the providers inductionprogram also covered end of life care. Leaders told us how they had worked with external professionals such as palliative care nurses and the local hospice to ensure staff had access to specialist advice and support to ensure people’s needs were met when they were receiving end of life care.