CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Richmond Village Wood Norton
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found that some environmental risks and fire drill arrangements were not managed well enough. Medicines, safeguarding, infection control and individual risk assessments were generally managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says people told inspectors staff were kind and respected their privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says some relatives felt changes in care were not always discussed with them.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks did not always identify or deal with risks. The provider also failed to notify CQC about some incidents, and some complaints had not been answered.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but weaknesses in safety checks, fire drills and management systems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 31 January and 2 February 2023, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and checked care records, medicines, training and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found risks with window restrictors, fire drill attendance, some recruitment records and the storage of items that could be harmful if swallowed.
People's medicines were managed safely. People said staff were kind and respected their privacy. However, management systems did not always identify problems or ensure incidents were reported to CQC. Some relatives also said concerns and changes in care were not always communicated or responded to.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in May 2021. This inspection looked only at Safe and Well-led, so the other question ratings carried over from the previous inspection.
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were administered safely, with checks, guidance and staff competency assessments in place.
“People's medicines were managed safely, staff had received training and their competencies assessed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors that staff treated them kindly and respected their privacy.
“People told us they were treated kindly by staff and their privacy was respected.” from the report
Individual risk assessments
Risks to people were assessed, recorded and reviewed, so staff knew how to provide safe support.
“Risks to people had been assessed and recorded so staff knew how to keep them safe.” from the report
Safeguarding
People were protected from abuse, and staff understood how to report safeguarding concerns.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse or harm.” from the report
Choice and control
Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices and that legal safeguards were used when needed.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Fire drill attendance
seriousNot all staff had attended a fire drill during the period checked, despite the home's own risk assessment. Inspectors said this placed people at risk.
“from September 2021 to September 2022 not all staff had attended a fire drill, in line with the providers own risk assessment.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousA previous window incident had not led to wider checks or stronger security quickly enough. The provider fitted additional restrictors after inspectors raised this.
“The provider did not take the opportunity to either change the type of window security fastenings, or to consider wider risks” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not always find or drive action on safety risks, missing records and unsafe storage of items that could be harmful if swallowed.
“Systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not always effective.” from the report
Incident reporting
seriousThe provider did not notify CQC about some incidents. Some notifications were sent later, but further missing notifications were found after the inspection.
“following the inspection, we found additional notifications had not been submitted to us.” from the report
Communication and complaints
needs fixingSome relatives said changes in care were not discussed with them. Some concerns or complaints had not received a response.
“some relatives told us they had raised either a concern or complaint and these had not been responded to.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every member of staff completes the required fire drills?
- 02What action was taken after the window restrictor incident, and how are all windows checked now?
- 03How do you make sure incidents are reported to CQC within the required timescale?
- 04How are items such as thickeners stored so that people cannot swallow them accidentally?
- 05How do you record and respond to relatives' complaints and explain changes in a person's care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection published on 19 May 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 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, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care at this first inspection.
Inspectors visited without notice on 13 and 14 April 2021. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
People and relatives spoke positively about the home. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable infection control and detailed care plans. Staff understood people's risks, choices and care needs.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity, had their needs met and were supported by effective management systems.
The inspection was prompted partly by concerns about safe care and treatment. Inspectors found no evidence during this visit that people were at risk of harm from that concern. This was the home's first inspection since registration.
People felt safe
People and relatives said the home kept people safe. Inspectors found systems to recognise and report abuse and to manage individual risks.
“People spoken to told us they felt safe with the care they received from staff.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely, with regular checks of staff competence.
“Administration records were completed accurately and regularly audited.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke warmly about staff. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy and ask permission before entering bedrooms or providing care.
“We saw staff respecting people's privacy and supporting people in a dignified way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described individual needs and wishes. Staff supported people's hobbies, interests, social lives and preferred routines.
“The care plans we reviewed set out people's individual needs and wishes in a detailed and person-centred way.” from the report
Strong management checks
The manager and staff understood their responsibilities. Regular checks covered health and safety, care plans and medicines.
“The registered manager and provider had effective systems of quality checks in place to monitor the service people received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks if their needs change?
- 02How will you support my relative's medicines needs, and how often are staff competency checks completed?
- 03What activities and support will be available for my relative's hobbies, interests and social life?
- 04How will you involve our family in mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions if needed?
- 05How will you provide care that reflects my relative's wishes at the end of their life?
This was the first inspection and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; CQC only inspects the parts of the service where people receive personal care. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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 Village Wood Norton
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Richmond Village Wood Norton →
- May 2021GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Richmond Village Wood Norton →
- April 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 April 2019.
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 Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“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.