CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Richmond Village Painswick
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors identified minor improvements needed in recruitment checks and safeguarding reporting.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had systems to monitor quality, manage incidents and complaints, involve people and relatives, and share learning. The registered manager was visible, open to feedback and working to improve the service.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, with minor improvements needed in recruitment checks and safeguarding procedures.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 18 October 2023. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, risks and medicines were managed well, staffing levels were sufficient and infection control was effective. People and relatives praised the staff and the care provided.
The inspection also found a few areas where practice could be strengthened. These included checking recruitment records more closely before staff started work and reinforcing staff understanding of when safeguarding concerns must be reported to outside agencies.
People felt safe
People and relatives said staff treated them kindly and that they felt safe living in the home.
“People and their relatives praised the staff who supported them and told us they felt safe living at Richmond Village Painswick.” from the report
Risks and medicines managed
Care plans, risk assessments and medicine systems were reviewed and managed well. Staff worked with health professionals when people's needs changed.
“People's care, risks and medicines were assessed and managed well by staff.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing rotas provided the right number and mix of care and nursing staff. People and relatives also said staff responded quickly.
“Sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to ensure the safe running of the care home and to meet people's needs.” from the report
Good management systems
The home used audits, meetings and reviews to monitor care, incidents, medicines, infection control and other risks. Feedback and learning were used to make improvements.
“The provider had systems in place to monitor the service and address any shortfalls.” from the report
Recruitment checks
minorThe registered manager did not yet have full oversight of completed recruitment checks and discrepancies. They agreed to add this check before staff began supporting people.
“The registered manager agreed to implement this check before staff started to support people.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
minorStaff knew how to recognise and report abuse, but the registered manager agreed to reinforce their understanding of reporting concerns to outside safeguarding agencies when needed.
“The registered manager agreed to reinforce staff's understanding of reporting concerns to external safeguarding agencies where required.” from the report
- 01What checks are now completed and reviewed before a new staff member starts work?
- 02How are staff taught when safeguarding concerns must be reported to external agencies?
- 03How will you show that people’s changing health and care risks are reviewed regularly?
- 04How are relatives’ feedback and complaints used to make improvements?
- 05What changes has the new registered manager made since taking up the role?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection published on 17 October 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 2023 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 2017
Richmond Village Painswick was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a minor recruitment record shortfall.
Inspectors visited on 30 August and 13 September 2017 without giving advance notice. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, managers and relatives. They also checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and staffing levels were sufficient.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care was personalised, people were involved in care planning, and there were activities, healthcare support and ways to raise concerns. The home had remained Good since the previous inspection.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staffing was sufficient and medicines records had no gaps in the sample checked.
“People's medicines were managed safely and they received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff positively, and inspectors observed respectful communication and responses to people’s needs.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff communicating with people in a respectful and caring way and responding to people's requests and needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s preferences, life histories and abilities. Activities were offered in groups and individually.
“People received care and support which was personalised and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Good management checks
The home used audits, surveys, meetings and visits by managers to monitor care and identify improvements.
“People benefitted from quality assurance checks to ensure a consistent service was being provided.” from the report
Some recruitment records incomplete
minorSome staff files did not show references covering all relevant previous employment. The provider had introduced improved guidance, and the manager said checks would be made to ensure it was followed.
“with some of the staff files we looked at these did not cover all relevant previous employment.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that references cover all relevant previous employment?
- 02How many staff are on duty during the day and at night, and how do you respond if someone is absent?
- 03How would you tailor activities and one-to-one support to my relative’s interests and abilities?
- 04How are meals adapted for personal tastes, special diets and any changing health needs?
- 05How often would my relative and family be involved in reviewing the care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says the home remained Good since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 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 Village Painswick
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.