CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Richmond Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse, avoidable harm and infection. Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, enough staff and safe recruitment, but noted medicine stock and record-keeping concerns under Well-led.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and induction, people’s health needs were supported, and dietary needs were met. People were supported to make choices and care was provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff offering emotional support, respecting privacy and dignity, and supporting people’s personal, cultural and spiritual choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personal and reviewed. People had access to activities, trips and community links, and the home provided information in different formats.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems did not always identify or follow up problems. Medicine stock errors, incomplete paperwork, limited incident trend analysis and gaps in staff handovers were identified.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but management checks and medicine records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records. The registered manager was on leave, so the deputy manager supported the inspection.
People told inspectors they felt safe and enjoyed living at the home. The home was clean and welcoming. Staff were kind, people’s choices and dignity were respected, and there were activities inside the home and in the local community.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, personalised care plans, good support with food and health needs, and a range of activities.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Audits had not always found medicine stock and paperwork errors, incidents were not checked for trends, and staff did not always receive a handover. The provider shared an action plan and said improvements had started.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and inspectors saw staff moving people gently and safely. Risks and equipment needs were assessed.
“Risks had been assessed and these included when people required equipment to move.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff noticed when people were quiet or distressed and offered support. People’s privacy, dignity, gender preferences and spiritual needs were respected.
“People had established positive relationships with the staff.” from the report
Good food and health support
People had a choice of meals and their dietary needs were recorded. Weights and health concerns were monitored, with referrals made when needed.
“People's weights were monitored, and any concerns followed up with health care professionals.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in activities such as art, singing, walks and trips out. The home also worked with local community groups.
“There was a wide range of opportunities for people to enjoy their day or follow activities of interest.” from the report
Medicine stock and records
needs fixingMedicine was administered safely, but inspectors found errors in stock control and paperwork. The provider said it took immediate action after the inspection.
“We found several errors in relation to stock control of medicines and paperwork not been reviewed or completed in line with current guidance.” from the report
Management checks did not always work
needs fixingAudits and incident reviews did not always identify problems, trends or completed actions. Records of weekly management meetings and actions were also not kept.
“When the accident and incidents had been reviewed, we could not be sure they reflected any trends or actions.” from the report
Staff handovers
needs fixingSome staff said they did not always receive information about people’s care needs when starting a middle-of-the-day shift. The deputy manager agreed to put arrangements in place.
“Staff felt supported by the provider and registered manager, however raised with us that they did not always receive a handover in relation to peoples care needs” from the report
Sharing improvements
minorRecent feedback and improvements were not always shared with people. The home’s feedback board had not been updated since July 2019.
“This meant any recent improvement had not always been shared with people.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicine stock checks and medicine paperwork since the inspection?
- 02How do you now review accidents and incidents to identify trends and actions?
- 03How do staff receive information about people’s care needs when they start a shift during the day?
- 04How do you record actions from audits and weekly management meetings, and check that they are completed?
- 05How are recent feedback and improvements shared with people and relatives?
This inspection looked at all five CQC questions and the care home premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good on 22 April 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Richmond Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
Inspectors visited on 22 and 28 February 2017. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, managers and health professionals. They also observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff records and quality checks.
The inspectors found people felt safe and received care from enough trained staff. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. People's health, nutrition and rights were supported. Staff were kind, respected privacy and encouraged people to make choices and remain independent.
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. The home offered group and individual activities, welcomed visitors and had a complaints process. Inspectors found an approachable management team and systems to check the quality and safety of the home.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. This report describes what inspectors found during those visits in February 2017.
People felt safe
Everyone spoken to said they felt safe. Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, and that staff responded promptly to requests for help.
“Without exception, everyone we spoke with felt safe at the service; this applied to both people in receipt of care as well as visitors and relatives.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. They supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence, including for people living with dementia.
“We saw staff were kind, caring and compassionate in their interactions with people.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered both group and individual activities. These included outings, music, exercises, special events and personal care services such as hairdressing.
“This showed activities were varied and offered to suit people's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors saw that staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Medicines were stored correctly and records matched the stock checked.
“This showed medicines management was taken seriously and staff ensured people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Quality checks
The home carried out audits and checks on areas including health and safety, medicines and moving equipment. Inspectors found these led to timely solutions.
“Audits were carried out to identify any areas for change or improvement and we saw this resulted in timely solutions to the issues identified.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff when someone is off sick?
- 02How are staff checked as competent to administer medicines, and how are medicine records audited?
- 03How are people living with dementia supported when they are anxious, confused or ask to go home?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in care planning and reviews?
- 05What recent complaints have you received, and what changes were made as a result?
This was an unannounced inspection over two days that reviewed the overall quality of the home and rated all five key areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 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 Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Richmond Residential Care Home →
- April 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Richmond Residential Care Home →
- February 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 February 2016.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.