CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Richmond Village Coventry
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Richmond Village Coventry was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care with strong management.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 11 April 2019. The inspection team reviewed seven people's care records, medicines records, quality checks and other documents. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, managers and professionals.
The home was clean and comfortable. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control and suitable risk assessments. People were supported to make choices, stay as independent as possible and access health care.
People told inspectors staff were kind and respectful. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. People could take part in activities, raise complaints and receive support with their personal, cultural, religious and end-of-life wishes.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was also rated Good. This means inspectors found good care and that legal requirements were met. The previous inspection, published in October 2016, was also rated Good.
Safety and risk management
Inspectors found that risks to people's health, movement and safety were assessed and managed without unnecessarily restricting people's freedom.
“People's safety had been considered and risks were managed to maintain their safety.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People told inspectors that staff were kind, respectful and compassionate. Staff also understood people's individual preferences and needs.
“People were treated kindly and compassionately by staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's health needs, life history, routines, interests and preferences. They were written with people, families and professionals and reviewed regularly.
“Care records were written with the person, their family members and professionals.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team carried out regular checks and audits. Actions were recorded in plans so improvements could be followed up.
“The audits and action plan allowed the provider to monitor and improve care for the people using the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's specific mobility, falls or equipment risks?
- 02How do you make sure care plans are updated when a person's health, preferences or support needs change?
- 03What staffing levels and nursing cover would be in place for my relative's needs on different shifts?
- 04How would you support my relative with food, fluids or a special diet if they needed monitoring?
- 05What activities and communication support would be available for my relative's interests, disability or dementia needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous inspection in October 2016 was also rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 May 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, October 2016
Richmond Village Coventry was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some care records and improvement actions were not kept up to date.
Inspectors visited on 7 and 13 September 2016 without giving notice. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, kind and respectful care, suitable activities and good involvement of people and relatives.
There were some record-keeping weaknesses. Some care plans did not contain recent weights or regular reviews. The home had also not always completed actions identified by its own checks. The manager said these issues would be addressed within the month of the visit.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough experienced staff to provide care and keep people safe. Medicines were administered by trained nurses and records showed when medicines were given or declined.
“There were sufficient, experienced staff to provide the support and stimulation people required to promote their wellbeing and to keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with dignity, asked permission before providing support and encouraged people to remain independent.
“We observed staff were kind and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
People's preferences, communication needs, relationships and interests were included in their support. The home provided activities and welcomed relatives and visitors.
“People's preferences, likes and dislikes were understood by the staff.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received training for their roles and could access further development. They said they felt supported by managers.
“Training was planned to support staff development and to meet people's care and support needs.” from the report
Care plans not always current
needs fixingSome care plans did not include recent monthly weights or regular reviews by senior staff. This made it harder to confirm that people's needs were being met.
“People's care plans reflected their care and support needs, however we found some plans had not been recently evaluated by senior staff and were not up to date.” from the report
Improvement actions were not always completed
needs fixingThe home's own checks had identified some issues, but not every action was completed or checked. One person's care plans were still not up to date after two audits.
“We found some action points raised by the audits had not been carried out and actions had not been checked for completion.” from the report
Safeguarding contact information
minorAt the start of the inspection, people did not have information explaining who to contact about a safeguarding concern. The manager acted immediately to make this information available.
“However, we found there was no information available to people about who to contact if they had a safeguarding concern.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every care plan is up to date, including monthly weights and regular reviews?
- 02Which actions from the quality checks were still outstanding, and how do you check that they have been completed?
- 03Where can residents and relatives find the current information about reporting a safeguarding concern?
- 04How are changes in a person's health, diet or mobility recorded and shared with all staff?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing care plans and deciding whether changes are needed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five key questions and the quality of care and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 October 2016 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 Village Coventry
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 December 2014.
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 Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.