CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Richardson Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed, monitored and reviewed. Medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had suitable training and support. People were helped to choose food and drink and to access healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people kindly and respected their privacy, dignity, choices and independence. Staff understood how people communicated, including when they could not speak.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs and were reviewed. People took part in activities and outings, and relatives were kept involved.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture and stronger audits and checks than at the previous inspection. Managers used feedback and monitoring to identify and act on improvements.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some fire safety and cosmetic work still being followed up.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 23 and 24 January 2020. They observed care, spoke with staff, relatives and healthcare professionals, and checked care records, medicines, maintenance records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans and staff who understood people's communication needs. People were supported to make choices, stay healthy, take part in activities and maintain relationships.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had four regulatory breaches. At this inspection, the provider was no longer in breach of regulations. Some cosmetic work was still needed, and the fire brigade had made recommendations for improving fire safety.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff and good knowledge of the people supported. Staff were trained and checked before administering medicines.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and staff had a good knowledge of the people they supported.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make choices, prepare food and drinks, and develop everyday skills. Staff used the least restrictive approach and involved important people in best-interest decisions.
“People were supported to choose their own food and drink. They were encouraged to make their own drinks and prepare food to increase their independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff communicated in ways people understood and responded patiently when people were anxious or distressed. Inspectors saw people being supported with dignity.
“Staff understood how to communicate with people in their preferred way and spoke to them kindly.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans reflected individual needs and preferences. People took part in outings, day-centre activities, shopping and seasonal events.
“People took part in various activities and outings.” from the report
Fire safety recommendations
needs fixingThe fire brigade had made recommendations to improve fire safety. Some action had already been taken, and the provider later supplied timescales for the remaining work.
“The fire brigade had visited the service in January 2020 and made some recommendations to improve the fire safety at the service.” from the report
Outstanding cosmetic work
minorMaintenance had improved, but inspectors said some cosmetic work was still needed in the home.
“Although some further cosmetic work was required the service was warm, safe and had homely touches throughout.” from the report
Further development of goals
minorManagers identified that goal setting and meaningful activities could be improved to help people develop skills and wellbeing.
“The registered manager said they had identified goal setting and meaningful activities could be further improved for people to help them develop skills and enhance their wellbeing.” from the report
- 01What fire safety recommendations were made, which have been completed, and what work is still outstanding?
- 02What cosmetic maintenance work remains, and when will it be finished?
- 03How are you improving goal setting and meaningful activities for each person?
- 04How do you make sure agency staff follow each person's food preparation and choking guidance?
- 05How are relatives kept informed about changes in their family member's care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of all five key questions, including the premises and care provided, following the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 March 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Requires Improvement in all five areas; inspectors found risks around food, guidance, maintenance and oversight.
Inspectors visited without notice on 29 and 30 January 2019. They spoke with staff, managers, a relative and healthcare professionals. They observed how people were supported and reviewed care records, staff records, policies, maintenance records, incidents and quality checks.
The home had enough staff, and medicines were managed safely. Staff were trained and supported. People were treated kindly, helped to communicate in their preferred ways, and supported to make choices and stay as independent as possible.
However, inspectors found important safety and care problems. Food was not always prepared or supervised safely for people at risk of choking. Guidance about behaviour was contradictory. Some areas were cold because repairs had not been completed, and care records contained confusing or outdated information.
The home was rated Requires Improvement in every area and overall. This was the fourth consecutive Requires Improvement rating. The provider was in breach of four regulations and was asked to send CQC an improvement report.
Safe medicines
Medicines were received, stored and given safely. Checks were carried out, including extra competency checks after errors.
“Medicines were safely received, stored and administered. Medicines were regularly audited to check for any errors.” from the report
Communication and kindness
Staff used signs, pictures and photographs to communicate with people. Inspectors saw staff speak patiently and support people in a respectful way.
“People were communicated with in their preferred way using signs, pictures and photographs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and develop everyday skills. Staff encouraged independence at the person's own pace.
“People received personalised care that promoted their independence.” from the report
Staff support and healthcare
Staff had received training, supervision and appraisals. People could access healthcare professionals and had plans covering their health needs.
“Staff worked together and with other healthcare professionals to ensure people received joined up care and support.” from the report
Food and behaviour risks
seriousFood was not always prepared as people's guidance required, and one person was not watched as instructed while eating. Staff also had contradictory instructions about managing behaviour.
“The provider had failed to do all that was reasonably practicable to mitigate risks.” from the report
Cold areas and delayed repairs
seriousSome rooms and shared areas were unacceptably cold. Window problems had continued since February 2018, and a bedroom heater had broken.
“Maintenance records showed the issue with the windows had been ongoing since February 2018 with no action taken by the provider” from the report
Confusing care records
needs fixingSome care plans contained conflicting or outdated instructions. This created a risk that agency staff would follow the wrong guidance.
“Because the plans were in the process of being updated some information was confusing and contradictory.” from the report
Activities affected by agency staffing
needs fixingOne person could not go out with others on one inspection day because agency staff were not able to manage their behaviour. The manager had to assess the risks when new agency staff were used.
“On the first day of our inspection one person was unable to go out with other people because agency staff deployed were not able to manage the person's behaviour.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's audits failed to find problems inspectors identified, including maintenance issues and water temperatures above 43 degrees. The report says improvements had not been driven since the last inspection.
“The registered providers systems for assessing and monitoring the quality and safety of the service provided was not successful and improvements had not been driven since the last inspection.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to make sure food is prepared and supervised safely for each person at risk of choking?
- 02How do you make sure all staff, including agency staff, have one clear and up-to-date guide for supporting behaviour?
- 03Have the cold rooms, broken heater and windows that could not be closed now been fully repaired?
- 04How do you check that care plans contain accurate information and that outdated instructions are removed?
- 05What changes have you made to your audits so they identify risks, maintenance problems and unsafe water temperatures?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 March 2019 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 Richardson Court
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.