CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Richard House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in medicines, recruitment and oversight, although people received kind care and support with food and drink.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 30 and 31 March 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, visitors and staff, and reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records. They checked Safe, Effective and Well-led only.
The home was not always safe. Medicines were not consistently managed, some recruitment checks were missing and some environmental safety checks had not been completed. Inspectors said these issues placed people at risk of harm.
There were positive findings. People’s food and drink needs were met, staff supported people respectfully, and people and visitors generally said they felt safe and cared for. Risk assessments, staff training and some management systems had improved since the previous inspection.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Requires Improvement. The home had been rated Requires Improvement for the last three consecutive inspections, and the provider remained in breach of regulations.
Food and drink
People were supported to eat and drink well. The chef knew people’s preferences and offered choices and alternatives.
“People were supported to eat and drink well. There was a set menu; however, the chef knew people's preferences and people were offered choices and alternatives.” from the report
Kind support
Inspectors saw respectful, kind interactions. People and visitors gave positive feedback about the care and said they felt safe.
“We observed a relaxed atmosphere, in which people and staff engaged and interacted with one another.” from the report
Healthcare links
Staff worked with GPs, nurses and other healthcare professionals. Referrals were made when people’s needs changed.
“Staff worked with other agencies, such as GPs and community nurses to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Improved risk planning
Care plans and risk assessments were now in place for areas such as falls, smoking and movement, and were reviewed regularly.
“Care plans to manage people's individual risks and manual handling risk assessment were now in place at the home and reviewed regularly.” from the report
Medicines
seriousMedicine administration, storage and recording were not consistently safe. Competency checks were missing for six of the seven staff who administered medicines, and medicines were sometimes unsecured.
“Medicines were not always consistently managed or administered safely in line with national guidance.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousTwo of the three staff files reviewed had missing information. One member of staff did not have the required checks, references, induction or training records.
“Robust recruitment procedures had not always been used and staff were not always recruited safely.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousAudits did not identify several problems found by inspectors. The provider had not shown that it could make and maintain improvements.
“The provider had not demonstrated continuous improvement and had failed to ensure safe and effective governance of the service.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousInspectors found repeated concerns involving hot water, radiators, gas, electrical installations and fire safety. A referral was made to the local fire service.
“Repeated shortfalls in environmental safety were identified on this inspection.” from the report
Staff support records
needs fixingAlthough training had improved, records did not always show that new staff had completed training before starting. Induction, supervision and competency checks also had gaps.
“We recommend the registered manager ensures records demonstrate that all staff have up-to-date training in place and all staff undergo regular induction, supervision and competency checks.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicine storage, time-critical medicine records, handovers and competency checks?
- 02Have all current staff had the required DBS checks, references, induction and training before working with residents?
- 03What has been done about the fire, gas, electrical, hot water and radiator safety concerns, and can I see the completed checks?
- 04How do your audits now identify and fix medicine, safety and care problems before they put people at risk?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in care assessments, reviews and feedback about the service?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Requires Improvement overall, with unsafe medicines and weak leadership, while care was kind and person-centred.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 and 11 March 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, visitors, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The main safety concerns were medicine errors, missing moving and handling assessments, and gaps in staff training and competency checks. One person received too much medicine and needed hospital checks. Inspectors raised a safeguarding alert with the local authority for everyone in the home.
People said staff were kind and respectful. Care plans were personalised, food and healthcare support were good, and activities were available. However, poor oversight by the provider meant the home was not consistently safe or well managed.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Safe and Effective were Requires Improvement, Caring and Responsive were Good, and Well-led was Inadequate. The previous inspection had also rated the home Requires Improvement, and the report says enough improvement had not been made.
Kind and respectful care
People and visitors spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed kind interactions, dignity and respect.
“We observed very kind and caring interactions between people and staff and established relationships were evident.” from the report
Personalised support
People and those important to them were involved in care planning. Plans recorded people's needs, choices and communication preferences.
“Care plans were inclusive and person-centred and written with full involvement of people and those important to them.” from the report
Food and healthcare
The home assessed nutritional needs, offered choices and supported people to access GPs, district nurses and other healthcare services.
“The service ensured people's nutritional needs were assessed and dietary requirements were met.” from the report
Activities and choice
An activities co-ordinator arranged events, while staff also involved people in activities. People had choices about where to spend time and what to do.
“An activities co-ordinator organised a variety of events at the home.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousInspectors found several medicine errors, including inaccurate records, medicines not given as prescribed and unsafe storage. One person received too much medicine and needed hospital checks.
“Medicines were not always managed and administered safely.” from the report
Missing moving and handling assessments
seriousPeople who needed equipment or staff help to transfer did not have the required safety assessments. This included a person who needed a hoist.
“However, we found no-one at the home had been assessed for safe moving and handling.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
seriousTraining was inadequate, including moving and handling, fire safety and safeguarding. Staff competency checks and supervision were also missing.
“The provider had not ensured staff undertook a programme of training and supervision to enable them to provide safe and effective care.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's systems did not identify serious safety problems. The manager was keen to improve, but the provider had not ensured they were sufficiently trained, supervised or supported.
“The provider had not demonstrated continuous improvement and had failed to ensure safe and effective governance of the service.” from the report
Building safety and condition
needs fixingSome hot radiators lacked adequate covers, some tap water was too hot, and items in the basement posed a possible fire risk. Some carpets, fittings and furniture were worn or stained.
“We found several radiators were hot and did not have adequate safety covers and records showed the water from a small number of taps was too hot.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine administration, medicine storage, MAR records and staff competency checks since the inspection?
- 02Have every resident's moving and handling needs been assessed by a suitably qualified person, and how are staff guided by those assessments?
- 03Which staff have completed up-to-date moving and handling, fire safety and safeguarding training?
- 04How does the provider now check that audits identify medicine errors, accident-recording gaps and other safety risks?
- 05What improvements have been completed to the hot radiators, hot taps, basement storage and worn carpets or furnishings?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at the care, premises, records, staffing and management across all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Richard House Care Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockport
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.