CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Richmond Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and risk assessments were in place and reviewed. Staffing levels, recruitment checks, medicines management and infection control arrangements were found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction and training, and care plans recorded people's health needs, choices and preferences. People had access to healthcare and were supported with food, drink and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff knew people's preferences and supported privacy, dignity, choice and involvement in care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and communication needs were recorded. Activities and communication with relatives needed some improvement, although complaints were handled effectively and visiting arrangements supported family relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was approachable and used audits and action plans to monitor quality. Communication with some relatives about meetings and care reviews needed to improve.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Richmond Manor was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some communication and activities needing improvement.
This was the first planned inspection since the home registered in 2020. Two inspectors visited without advance notice on 19 October 2021 and inspection activity continued until 27 October 2021. They spoke with 12 people, three relatives, 11 staff and one visiting professional. They also checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The inspectors found Good care in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and staff had suitable training. Care plans recorded people's needs and preferences, and people and families were involved in planning care.
There were some areas to improve. One relative had not been contacted during a care plan review. Some people and relatives felt activities were limited. Not all relatives knew about relatives' meetings or received the minutes. The manager was taking action to improve communication and review activities.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk assessment, staffing and recruitment systems.
“People told us they felt safe and the staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, polite and caring. Staff showed knowledge of people's needs and preferences.
“People and their relatives felt the staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Good care planning
Care plans included people's medical needs, likes, dislikes and preferences. People and families were involved in the assessment and planning process.
“People and their families told us they had been involved in the care planning assessment process.” from the report
Trained staff and safe medicines
Staff received induction and training, and checks confirmed they could give medicines safely.
“Staff had completed training in the safe administration of medicines.” from the report
Active quality monitoring
The home used audits, staff checks and action plans to identify improvements. The management team was described as approachable.
“Systems were in place to monitor the quality and standard of care provided.” from the report
Care review communication
minorOne relative had not been contacted as part of the care plan review process. The manager said this system was being reviewed to improve involvement and communication.
“One relative told us they had not been contacted as part of the care plan review process.” from the report
Activities and relatives' meetings
minorSome people and relatives felt activities were limited. Not all relatives knew about meetings or received the minutes, and the home was taking action to improve this.
“There was a mixed response from people and their relatives to the availability of activities, with some people feeling these were limited.” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorSome relatives were not aware of relatives' meetings and had not received information about what was discussed and agreed.
“Not all relatives spoken with advised they had been made aware of these meetings and had not received minutes of what had been discussed and agreed.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure families are contacted and involved in care plan reviews?
- 02What activities are currently available, and how do you match them to each resident's hobbies and interests?
- 03How are relatives told about meetings, and how are minutes or agreed actions shared?
- 04How will you support my relative's preferred way of communicating?
- 05How do you check that medicines continue to be given safely by trained staff?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control measures in the home during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found arrangements for safer visits, including health screening, temperature checks, lateral flow testing and personal protective equipment. Staff had been trained in using protective equipment, and their practice was monitored.
The home had completed risk assessments for people at higher risk. It also kept COVID-19 information for staff and people living there up to date.
The overall service and Safe question were marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the inspection checked infection control arrangements but did not give a quality rating.
Safer visits
The home had a designated visiting area and required visitors to complete health checks, have their temperature taken and take a lateral flow test.
“A designated area was available to support safe visits to the home.” from the report
Staff protective equipment
Staff had training in using protective equipment. Their practice was checked and concerns were dealt with through meetings and individual supervision.
“Staff had received training on how to wear, put on and take off PPE.” from the report
Risk assessments
Risk assessments had been completed for people identified as being at higher risk, with changes made where needed to reduce risk.
“Risk assessments had been completed for those who had been identified as high risk” from the report
Up-to-date infection information
The home kept COVID-19 information available to staff and people living there and reviewed it regularly.
“This was regularly reviewed and updated to remain accurate and reflective of current government guidelines.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 11 March 2021?
- 02Do visitors still complete health screening, temperature checks and testing before entering the home?
- 03How do you check that staff are using personal protective equipment correctly?
- 04How are infection risks assessed for each person, and how often are those assessments reviewed?
- 05How do you keep your infection prevention and control policies and guidance up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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.
Every inspection of Richmond Manor
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 June 2020.
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 Central Bedfordshire
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. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.