CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Richford Gate
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and support for contact with families and activities.
This was an announced inspection on 17 November 2020. It was part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found regular COVID-19 testing for staff and residents, clear individual risk assessments, and plans for self-isolation if someone became unwell. They were assured that visitors, social distancing, protective equipment, hygiene and infection outbreak arrangements were being managed safely.
The inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated score for Safe. It looked at infection prevention and control only, rather than all aspects of care.
COVID-19 testing
The home had regular testing in place for staff and residents and was planning to introduce rapid testing.
“The service had implemented regular COVID-19 testing for staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised safety plans
Each resident had a risk assessment and a plan for supporting them to self-isolate if they became unwell.
“There were clear risk assessments for each person who used the service to help reduce the risk of contracting or spreading the virus.” from the report
Keeping people connected
Residents were supported to stay in touch with family and friends and to take part in meaningful activities.
“People were supported to maintain contact with family, friends and structured activities.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured about visitors, social distancing, protective equipment, hygiene and the prevention or management of outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Approach could be developed
minorCQC signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not explain what further changes were needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after CQC signposted resources to develop the infection prevention and control approach?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested now, and are rapid tests available?
- 03How would you support my relative to self-isolate if they became unwell?
- 04How do you currently manage visitors, protective equipment and social distancing?
- 05How will my relative keep in contact with family and take part in meaningful activities?
This was a focused thematic inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other four key questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 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, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but noted fire safety work, staffing pressures and limited plans to encourage healthier eating.
Inspectors visited on 29, 30 and 31 May 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, care workers and managers. They reviewed care, medicines, safety, staffing and recruitment records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were treated with kindness and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had breached a governance regulation. New checking systems were working. However, some fire safety repairs were still being dealt with by the landlord, the home sometimes lacked staff because of sickness, and healthier eating plans were not detailed enough.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that people's privacy, dignity and preferences were respected.
“People told us that they found staff kind and caring and approachable.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to learn skills, set personal goals and access the community in ways they chose.
“People were supported to maintain and develop their independence and to access the community to carry out activities of their choice.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had introduced new audits and checks. These addressed the record-keeping problems found at the previous inspection.
“There were new systems in place to audit and check records and these were effective.” from the report
Medicines records
Medicines were stored and checked safely. Inspectors found that administration records were complete.
“Support workers completed medicines administration records (MAR) charts. These were fully completed with no gaps or anomalies.” from the report
Fire safety and building repairs
seriousThe landlord still needed to complete work linked to fire safety recommendations. Inspectors also found some areas of the building in poor repair.
“A recent inspection by the London Fire Brigade had identified several fire safety issues that needed to be rectified by the landlord.” from the report
Staffing during sickness
needs fixingThe home was sometimes short staffed because of sickness, and cover was not always found. Inspectors found no evidence that staffing was unsafe, but clear guidance on unsafe staffing levels was lacking.
“At times the service was short staffed due to sickness. Care workers and managers tried to arrange cover for these times, but this was not always successful.” from the report
Healthier eating support
needs fixingPeople's food choices were respected, but the home did not have a detailed and consistent way to encourage healthier choices. Inspectors made a recommendation.
“The provider lacked a detailed and consistent approach for encouraging people to make healthier choices.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThe registered manager had left shortly before the inspection. An experienced manager and deputy manager were overseeing the home while a permanent manager was sought.
“The service did not have a registered manager in place following the resignation of the registered manager in March.” from the report
- 01What fire safety work and building repairs identified in the report have now been completed?
- 02What is the plan for maintaining safe staffing levels when staff are off sick?
- 03How do you support people to make healthier food choices while respecting their decisions?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and when is a registered manager expected to be appointed?
- 05How are the new audits and record checks being kept up to date?
This was a routine inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the care home. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 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 Richford Gate
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 2011.
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 Hammersmith and Fulham
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.