CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Richmond Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received their medicines as prescribed, risks were assessed and managed, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The home was clean and staff used protective equipment effectively.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, routines and preferences. The home supported communication, family contact, activities and complaints, although the range of activities had reduced during the pandemic.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management and quality checks had improved, with electronic care planning helping managers monitor reviews. A medicines audit was replaced immediately when inspectors found it was not fit for purpose.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, responsive care and improved management, but activities had reduced during the pandemic.
This was an announced focused inspection. Inspectors visited the home on 20 April 2021 and reviewed information, care records, medicines records, quality checks and infection control. They spoke with four people and nine staff, observed care and gathered further information after the visit.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found that medicines were being managed safely, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient, and the home was clean with effective use of protective equipment.
Care plans gave staff useful information about people's needs, routines and preferences. People were supported to make choices, keep in touch with relatives and raise complaints. The home had improved its quality checks and was no longer in breach of the regulations identified at the previous inspection.
This inspection did not cover Effective or Caring. Their previous ratings were carried forward when the overall rating was calculated.
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found that people received their medicines as prescribed. Stock checks, photographs on medicines records and guidance for as-required medicines helped reduce errors.
“Medicines were now being managed safely at this inspection.” from the report
Enough trained staff
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, with the option to increase staffing when required. Recruitment checks and checks on nurses' registration were completed.
“People had their care and support needs met by sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Electronic care plans recorded people's needs, routines, backgrounds and life histories. Staff used this information to support choice and independence.
“Electronic care plans contained detailed information for staff to follow to support people, whilst encouraging people to maintain established levels of independence.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had improved its quality assurance systems and used care planning records to identify when reviews were due. Managers used audit findings to make changes.
“Quality assurance systems in place had improved, assisted with the use of electronic care planning.” from the report
Clean environment and infection control
The home was visibly clean. Staff were observed using the correct protective equipment, and extra cleaning had been introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The home was visibly clean, and staff were observed wearing the correct PPE.” from the report
Activities had reduced
minorThe home said the variety of activities had reduced during the pandemic because there had been no activities coordinator. A new coordinator had plans for future activities, but the report records this as an area to watch.
“The home acknowledged that the variety of activities on offer had reduced during the pandemic due to the lack of a coordinator.” from the report
Medicines audit needed replacing
needs fixingInspectors found that the medicines audit being used was not suitable for checking medicines management. A more thorough tool was introduced and completed immediately.
“The medicines audit in use was not fit for purpose.” from the report
- 01Has the planned electronic medicines administration system now been introduced, and what training have staff received?
- 02What activities are currently available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and comfort with group activities?
- 03How often are medicines audits completed now, and who checks that any problems are acted on?
- 04How will you make sure care plan reviews continue to happen on time?
- 05How can relatives be involved in care reviews, meetings and safe visits?
This was an announced focused inspection covering Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not assessed and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 2021 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 7 December 2020. It was carried out because of the coronavirus pandemic and looked at infection prevention and control practices.
Inspectors found that the two units were kept separate, with separate staff teams, entrances and facilities. The home also used social distancing measures, cleaning rotas, staff temperature checks and changes of uniform.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, shielding, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, outbreak management and the infection control policy. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Separate units
The two units were separated to support social distancing and reduce the risk of cross-contamination. Each unit had its own staff team, facilities and entrances.
“The provider had segregated the two units in the care home to support social distancing and minimise cross contamination.” from the report
Information for residents
Staff held weekly meetings with residents about the pandemic, hygiene and local restrictions.
“Staff held weekly meetings with people to share and discuss information on the pandemic, good hygiene practice and local restrictions.” from the report
Infection control leadership
The home had a named infection control lead and staff infection control champions who helped maintain standards.
“The home had a designated infection control lead and infection control champions among its staff group.” from the report
Cleaning and staff arrangements
Cleaning duties were shared across the day and night. Staff had temperature checks and changed uniforms when starting and finishing work.
“Cleaning rotas covered a 24-hour period with cleaning duties shared between the cleaning staff, support staff and night staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the two units kept separate now, and are staff still allocated to one unit?
- 02How do you check that PPE is used correctly and that residents and staff receive testing?
- 03What arrangements are in place if there is an infection outbreak?
- 04How do you manage visits and admissions while reducing infection risks?
- 05What is the current position on the areas not covered by this targeted inspection, including caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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.
Every inspection of Richmond Care
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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 Manchester
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. 89 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.