You are here

Richmond Village Coventry DCA Good


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Richmond Village Coventry DCA on 8 July 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Richmond Village Coventry DCA, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 17 April 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Richmond Village Coventry is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care for people in their own homes, located within Richmond Village. There were 39 people receiving this service at the time of our inspection. People who received care in their own home could access facilities across the village, such as communal gardens, restaurants, a shop and a bowling green.

People's experience of using this service:

•People felt safe with staff who visited them in their home.

•People's safety had been considered and risks were managed to maintain their safety.

•Staff had received training in relation to safeguarding and knew how to protect people from harm.

•Medicine was managed safely.

•The risk of infection spreading was reduced by good hygiene practice.

•The provider delivered person-centred care. People’s needs were assessed in detail to ensure the service could be tailored to meet their individual social, care and health needs.

•People were supported to have choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

•People were treated kindly and compassionately by staff.

•People were supported to express their views and make decisions about the care and treatment they received.

•Staff respected people's privacy and dignity.

•People were supported to take part in activities of their choice.

•Information was provided in a range of formats to support people’s understanding.

•The provider had a complaints policy and process in place; people feel comfortable raising complaints.

•When people reached the end of their life, the provider had policies in place to meet their wishes and preferences.

•The provider had quality monitoring arrangements through which they continually reviewed, evaluated and improved people's care.

•People, stakeholders and staff had an opportunity to shape the service.

•The provider invested in staff development to ensure people received care from experienced and caring leaders.

Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Richmond Village DCA was published in November 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was scheduled to take place in line with Care Quality Commission scheduling guidelines for adult social care services.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure it meets its regulatory requirements.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Inspection carried out on 5 October 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 28 September and 5 October 2016. The inspection was announced. This was to ensure the registered manager and staff were available when we visited, to talk with us about the service. The service was last inspected on 22 October 2013, when we found they were meeting the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations.

The registered manager had been in post for two years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. The service was made up of two different parts, which were based in the provider’s ‘village’. One part provided support for adults with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. At the time of our visit ten people rented independent flats inside a shared building and received care and support from this part of the service. The other part of the service was called, ‘assisted living’, where older people either owned or rented property in the provider’s village. At the time of our visit, 16 people received personal care from this part of the service. Everyone had use of the providers' facilities, such as a restaurant, a hair dressing salon and a small shop.

People told us they felt safe using the service and staff understood how to protect people from abuse. There were processes to minimise risks associated with people’s care to keep them safe. This included the completion of risk assessments to identify and manage risks to people’s health and well-being and checks on staff to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service. People's medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.

There were enough suitably trained staff to deliver care and support to people. Staff received an induction and a programme of training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). For people who were assessed as not having the capacity to make all of their own decisions, records showed that their families, legal representatives and healthcare professionals were involved in making decisions in their best interests. Staff understood the principles of the MCA, they respected people’s decisions and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care.

People told us staff were kind and caring and had the right skills to provide the care and support they required. Care plans contained relevant information for staff to help them provide the care people required. Staff treated people in a way that respected their dignity and promoted their independence.

People were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. Care was planned to meet people’s individual needs and preferences and care plans were regularly reviewed. People knew how to complain and were able to share their views and opinions about the service they received. People had fulfilling lives because they were engaged in activities that were meaningful to them.

Staff felt supported and were encouraged to share ideas to make improvements to the service. The registered manager and deputy manager were dedicated to providing quality care to people. There were processes to monitor the quality of the service provided and understand the experiences of people who used the service. The process included regular communication with staff, surveys and a programme of other checks and audits.

Inspection carried out on 22 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with eight people who used Richmond Village Coventry DCA about their experiences of the service. We observed the care where possible that was given to people during our inspection. We spoke with a range of staff including the registered manager.

People we spoke with told us that the care planning was discussed with them regularly. We saw they were involved with the care planning of their care and had signed their plan to confirm their involvement.

We found that staff listened to people about their care needs and their wishes. We saw people's independence was promoted within their care plans and on the day of our inspection.

We found that the care plans were person centred and reflected people�s individual needs. We saw that staff supported people as detailed within their care plans. We observed that staff were compassionate and caring when supporting people.

People we spoke with told us that staff were friendly and supported their needs well. We spoke with staff who knew what people's care needs were and how they needed to be supported.

We spoke with six members about what they thought abuse was and they showed they had a good awareness of the importance of keeping people safe. They understood their responsibilities for reporting any concerns regarding potential abuse.

We found the service was well led and there was a system in place to monitor the quality of service being provided.