CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Richmond
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2021
The Richmond: targeted inspection found good COVID-19 infection controls, but the service was inspected and not rated.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 15 April 2021. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks. The home was clean, and staff used signs to support safe handwashing and PPE use.
The home had arrangements for relatives to visit safely and used telephone, video calls and extra activities to reduce social isolation. Everyone living and working there had been offered a vaccine and was regularly tested.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four key questions.
Safe visiting arrangements
The home supported visits by appointment in a dedicated room with a separate entrance, while also offering telephone and video contact.
“The home had systems in place to support relatives to visit their family members, minimising the risk of infection.” from the report
Reducing isolation
Staff had considered the risk of social isolation during the pandemic and introduced extra activities to support people's wellbeing.
“The registered manager and staff had considered how to prevent social isolation during the pandemic. They had put in place additional activities to ensure peoples well-being.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the premises clean and hygienic, with frequent touch points regularly cleaned.
“The premises were clean and hygienic. Frequent touch points, such as handrails and door knobs were regularly cleaned.” from the report
PPE and handwashing guidance
Signs around the home guided staff on using PPE and washing their hands properly.
“We observed signage around the home to guide staff on the use of protective personal equipment (PPE) and appropriate handwashing technique.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
Everyone living and working at the home had been offered a vaccine and was regularly tested for COVID-19 in line with government guidance.
“All people living and working at The Richmond had been offered a vaccine and were regularly tested for COVID-19 in line with government guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have visiting arrangements changed since the inspection, and can relatives visit indoors or outdoors now?
- 02What activities are currently provided to reduce social isolation and support people's wellbeing?
- 03How are people and staff tested for infections now, and how is PPE use checked?
- 04What cleaning schedule is used for frequently touched surfaces such as handrails and door handles?
- 05How are people at greater risk, including those with dementia or learning disabilities, supported during an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it did not assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some care plans still needing more personal detail.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 31 July and 1 August 2018. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, well-managed medicines, good cleanliness, kind interactions, suitable food and access to healthcare. People had activities and were supported with end of life care.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in June 2017, when it was rated Requires Improvement. Improvements included medicines guidance, records about decisions for people who lacked capacity, staffing at mealtimes and management checks.
Kind and personal care
Inspectors saw warm, friendly interactions. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and needs, and supported people to remain as independent as possible.
“During this observation we saw that the nurses and the care staff were warm, friendly and engaging in their interaction with people who used the service.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Problems found at the previous inspection had been addressed. Medicines were stored, given and recorded correctly, with regular checks.
“At this inspection these issues had been effectively addressed and all aspects of the storage, administration and recording of people's medicine were well managed.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing had been reviewed and a breakfast assistant had been added. Inspectors saw that staff had time to meet people's needs, including at mealtimes.
“At this inspection there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to support people safely and to meet their needs.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had stronger audits and quality checks. People, relatives and staff said the management team listened to their views and acted on feedback.
“At this inspection we saw significant improvement in the way the service was being managed.” from the report
Some care plans were too general
needs fixingAlthough most plans included personal information, some used pre-populated wording and were very similar. Inspectors said this did not fully match the home's person-centred approach.
“However, because the electronic system included the use of pre- populated information, some people's plans were very similar.” from the report
Religious and spiritual support details
minorRecords included people's religious beliefs, but gave staff less information about how to help people practise those beliefs, such as attending religious services.
“Although the records we checked included information about people's religious beliefs, there was room to improve the information for staff about how they should support people in upholding and practising their beliefs, such as attending religious services.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's care plan is written in personal detail rather than using general or pre-populated wording?
- 02How will you record and support my relative's religious or spiritual beliefs and any wish to attend religious services?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given and recorded correctly?
- 04How will you make sure there are enough staff at the times when my relative needs the most help, including mealtimes?
- 05How are relatives involved in care planning and decisions if a person cannot make a decision for themselves?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings, with the first day unannounced; the previous overall rating in June 2017 was Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 September 2018 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 Richmond
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
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.