CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Richardson Mews
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some medicine records did not contain current prescription information, one 'as required' medicine protocol did not match the prescription, and staff did not always sign after giving medicines. Some recruitment and low-level restraint records also needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans, regular psychological and health reviews, suitable food and drink, and access to healthcare. Some staff had not completed all their training, but trained staff supervised them and an action plan was in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said they were happy and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in care planning and encouraged to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's individual needs, goals, communication methods and interests. People were supported with activities, relationships, complaints and access to psychological support.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had oversight through audits and an action plan, and worked closely with health professionals. The provider made immediate changes when inspectors identified issues with recruitment, medicines and training.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because medicines and some safety records were not always properly completed.
Inspectors visited without notice over three days. They spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, incident, audit and recruitment records. They also checked infection prevention measures.
The home supported 28 people with acquired brain injuries. Inspectors found personalised care, skilled staff and strong support from psychologists and other health professionals. People were treated kindly, involved in decisions and supported to build independence.
The main weakness was safety. Some medicine records and 'as required' medicine instructions were not correct, and staff did not always sign medicine records. Some staff files lacked suitable references, and records about low-level restraint did not always contain all the information needed.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. This was the first inspection since the service was newly registered under the current provider, although the previous provider had been rated Good in 2018.
Personalised rehabilitation
People had care plans and rehabilitation support tailored to their physical, cognitive and psychological needs. The multidisciplinary team regularly reviewed progress and risks.
“People's plans were tailored to their specific needs and mitigated their known risks.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were involved in decisions and were supported with privacy, dignity and independence. Inspectors observed staff speaking positively and encouragingly to people.
“Staff were kind caring and respectful of people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Strong health support
The home worked with consultants, GPs and specialist health services. People received psychological reviews and help to attend healthcare appointments.
“The team worked closely with people's consultants and healthcare teams to provide a holistic approach to their care.” from the report
Good management oversight
The provider used audits, reviews and an action plan to identify improvements. It acted immediately on several issues found during the inspection.
“The provider implemented immediate changes during the inspection where we identified issues with recruitment, medicines and training.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome medicine administration records did not show current prescription information. One 'as required' protocol did not match the prescription, and staff did not always sign to confirm medicines had been given.
“During the inspection we identified some medicine administration records (MAR) supplied by the pharmacy did not have the current prescription information.” from the report
Recruitment references
needs fixingNot all staff files contained suitable references from previous employers. The provider introduced risk assessments after inspectors raised this issue.
“Not all staff files contained suitable references from previous employers, however, these employees were known to the service as they had worked as agency staff at the home.” from the report
Restraint records
needs fixingRecords did not always include all the information needed to analyse and learn from incidents involving low-level restraint. The provider updated its procedures and protocols.
“Staff had not always recorded all of the information required to analyse and learn from incidents where low level restraint had been used to manage peoples' safety.” from the report
Staff training
minorSome staff had not completed their training. The provider had identified this and was encouraging staff to complete it, with trained staff supervising untrained staff.
“Staff training records showed some staff had not completed their training.” from the report
End of life training
minorStaff did not have specific end of life care training. They knew where to get advice and support if it was needed.
“Staff did not specifically receive training in end of life care.” from the report
- 01What checks now make sure every medicine record has the current prescription information?
- 02How do you make sure 'as required' medicine protocols match prescriptions and that staff sign after medicines are given?
- 03Have all staff now completed their required training, and how is this monitored?
- 04How do you check that staff recruitment files contain suitable references?
- 05What new records and checks are used when low-level restraint is needed?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous provider's rating was Good, published on 5 March 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 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.
Every inspection of The Richardson Mews
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 May 2022.
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 West Northamptonshire
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 £1,280 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“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.”
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.