CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Richmond Mews
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and managed safely. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice and systems for learning from accidents and incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and guidance to support people with complex needs. People had access to healthcare, nutritional support and adapted equipment.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Activities reflected people's interests, relatives could visit without restriction, and complaints were handled through the home's policy.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management arrangements, regular audits and meetings, and a person-centred culture. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Richmond Mews was rated Good in all five areas, with kind, personalised care and safe systems found during the inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 November 2019. The inspectors spoke with 10 people living at the home, two relatives, the registered manager and four staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines records and management documents.
The inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by trained staff who knew them well. People were helped to make choices, build independence, keep in touch with relatives and take part in activities they enjoyed.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 24 May 2017.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind, friendly and caring. Inspectors also observed warm interactions and found that privacy and dignity were respected.
“We observed warm and friendly interactions between people and staff and people spoke to us with fondness about the staff who they referred to as 'friends'.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, express their views and develop skills. The home encouraged people to take positive risks and live as independently as possible.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were based on people's interests and aspirations. People were supported to maintain relationships and take part in trips and community activities.
“People's activities were tailored to meet their preferences to make people's experiences more meaningful.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were given safely and on time. Monitoring of medicines prescribed as needed had helped reduce their use.
“There had been a reduction in PRN medications administered as a result of using the monitoring form.” from the report
Strong staff training
Staff received induction, supervision through shadowing and a broad training programme. Training needs were reviewed and further learning was supported.
“Staff received a comprehensive training programme that enabled them to support people with often complex needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you provide the same accessible information technology in every unit, as planned in the report?
- 02How do you monitor medicines prescribed on an as-needed basis, and how do you decide whether they are still needed?
- 03How would you support my relative's particular communication methods, wishes and goals?
- 04How are care plans updated when a person's needs change, and how are relatives involved in reviews?
- 05What activities and opportunities for independence could you offer based on my relative's interests?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 January 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 12 April 2017. They spoke with people living there, a relative, staff, nurses and the manager. They also reviewed care records, medicines information, staff files, training, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines systems, suitable training, support with food and healthcare, and care that respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
The home supports up to 44 adults with learning disabilities or other complex needs. At the inspection, 43 people lived there. Inspectors said action had been taken to address concerns about staffing, medicines and quality audits found at the previous inspection in October 2015.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff and saw that medicines were managed by trained staff. The home had improved its medicines recording since the previous inspection.
“People were supported by sufficient staff to meet their needs, and to safely take their medicines.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received training in areas including de-escalation, the Mental Capacity Act and people's specific needs. They also received regular support and supervision.
“People were supported by well-trained staff who enabled them to make choices in their daily lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly and respectful interactions. Staff understood people's communication, choices, privacy and dignity.
“People were supported by staff that were kind, caring and friendly.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs and communication methods. People were supported with activities, community trips and maintaining family relationships.
“People's needs had been assessed and appropriate care plans were in place to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Open management
The manager involved staff and families in discussions and used audits, feedback and incident reviews to improve the home.
“The registered manager was approachable and provided strong leadership and direction for staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check that staffing levels continue to match each person's needs, including one-to-one support?
- 02How do you check that time-specific medicines are given at the correct times and recorded accurately?
- 03How would you support my relative if they communicate through body language, pictures, signs or another method?
- 04How do you use complaints, family feedback and incident reviews to make changes?
- 05How often are quality and health and safety audits completed, and how are any problems followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 2017 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 Mews
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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 Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.