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

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good.

At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Systems were in place to ensure learning took place when things went wrong and shared with the staff team. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The management team ensured investigations of accidents and incidents took place to determine the actions that may be required to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

The provider was open and transparent about incidents and accidents that occurred, they were recorded and reported appropriately. Staff told us their learning was kept updated to ensure people’s needs continued to be met.

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.

People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service, ensuring staff had the information required to provide safe and appropriate care. Where there was a transition of care, for example a person moving into the care home on the site or with another provider. Important information was shared between the services to aid continuity of care.

Care plans and risk assessments were developed from pre‑admission assessments and were updated and reviewed to reflect any changes in people’s needs. A relative said, “There was an initial assessment, and the care package was put in place, the assessment of my relative’s needs is ongoing as their needs change. If I make a request for changes, they are responsive and accommodating.”

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 told us they felt safe and well supported by staff, with one person commenting, “I could not be safer. The carers make sure that everything is okay.” The provider had effective systems in place to investigate and analyse accidents and incidents, ensuring action was taken to reduce the risk of recurrence. The registered manager took appropriate action when safeguarding incidents occurred, including following the duty of candour and reporting concerns to external agencies such as the local safeguarding team and the CQC. Incidents were monitored and analysed to identify any emerging themes or trends, helping to protect people from the risk of harm.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe. They were confident in recognizing signs of abuse or suspected abuse and knew how to report concerns promptly and appropriately. This helped ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. A staff member said, “Staff have the responsibility to keep service users safe, any concerns I would report to my manager.”

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.

Systems to identify and plan for risks to people’s safety and well-being were in place. Staff had access to person‑centred risk assessments that considered the persons individual needs and circumstances. These assessments included measures to reduce potential risks and promote people’s safety.

Risk assessments were kept under review and updated to reflect any changes in people’s needs, ensuring staff had current information to work with. Staff understood the importance of following care plans to keep people safe and when people’s needs changed, these were shared with management and relevant agencies. This helped to ensure risks were managed to keep people safe. A staff member told us, “To promote people’s safety, you read the care plan and follow it. For example, I make sure the rotunda is with the person before they start transferring.

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

People lived in apartments which were purpose built for independent or assisted living. The domiciliary care team provided personalized tailored care and support to people where required.Environmental risk assessments had been completed to identify and manage potential hazards within the persons home environment. This ensured appropriate measures were in place to promote the safety of both the person receiving care and staff providing the support.

Staff commented that if they had concerns about the safety of the premises or equipment, they would escalate this to management or the agency who supplied the items and issues with the premises would be reported to the maintenance team.

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.

Most people told us there were enough staff and they all felt safe with them. One person said, “The staff are usually on time and always stay for the time they are supposed to.” And a relative commented, “On the whole I would say they (staff) are pretty consistent with their timings. Occasionally they are slightly late due to staff sickness or an emergency somewhere else. If this happens, carers from the care home tend to stand in.” Although a couple of people and some staff did not consider there were enough staff, the provider evidenced that people’s needs were met effectively with. enough suitably skilled staff.

The provider had robust recruitment systems in place ensuring suitable staff were employed to work for Richmond Village Aston on Trent DCA. Staff files showed appropriate pre-employment checks had been completed to help make safer recruitment decisions. Staff received training relevant to peoples care needs and ongoing support including competency checks and supervision ensuring staff were suitable in their roles.

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.

People were protected from the risk of infection. The provider had systems and processes to assess and manage the risk of infection. Spot checks were completed, which included observations and discussions with staff to ensure staff were following effective infection prevention measures. Staff explained that they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and disposed of this safely. A staff member stated, “PPE use is down to everyone to keep people safe and handwashing is also crucial. I change PPE between calls and tasks when supporting a person.” Staff training records confirmed they had completed infection prevention and control training.

People told us they had no concerns about infection prevention practice and that staff wore PPE. One person said, “They [staff] always wear gloves and aprons when providing personal care.”

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.

Some people who received care from the service were supported with their medicines. Staff who administered medicines had completed medicines management training and had undergone competency checks to make sure medicines were administered safely. Processes to make sure people received their medication as prescribed were in place, including monthly audits, weekly medicines essential checks and daily checks. This ensured any errors would be identified at the earliest opportunity and actions identified and implemented to reduce the risk of recurrence.

A relative told us “The staff order my relative’s medicines and ensure the stock is maintained. There are papers detailing when the medicines should be given and the carers will put them in a pot for my family member and politely make sure these are taken while they are there.”