Archived: Richmond Heights

Updated 6 March 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This inspection was completed by two inspectors, an assistant inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The Expert by Experience had experience in caring for older people and people living with dementia.

Service and service type:

Richmond Heights is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Richmond Heights provides accommodation and personal or nursing care for up to 51 older people with a range of support needs, including people living with dementia. The home is an adapted building over two floors.

The service had a manager registered with CQC. This means the registered manager and provider are both legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

Before this inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. The registered manager had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We contacted social care commissioners who help arrange and monitor the care of people living at Richmond Heights. We also contacted Healthwatch (Sheffield). Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We used the feedback we received from these organisations to plan our inspection.

During this inspection we spoke with five people living at Richmond Heights and six of their relatives and friends. We spoke with 12 members of staff which included three care assistants, two nurses, the cook, an activity coordinator, a range of other ancillary staff and the registered manager. We also spoke with two health and social care professionals who were visiting Richmond Heights during this inspection, to obtain their views about the service.

We looked at five people's care records and selected documents from one other care record. We checked 17 medication administration records and three staff files which included recruitment checks, supervisions and appraisals. We also looked at other records relating to the management of the service, such as quality assurance audits.

We spent time observing the daily life in the service and we looked around the building to check environmental safety and cleanliness.

Updated 6 March 2019

About the service:

Richmond Heights is a care home that provides accommodation for people who require personal or nursing care. The home can accommodate up to 51 people. At the time of this inspection there were 47 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People told us they felt safe at Richmond Heights. They knew who to report any concerns to and were happy with the support they received from staff. People’s care records contained guidance for staff about how to support people safely and minimise risks to people. Staff were trained in their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and knew what action to take if they witnessed or suspected any abuse;

• The service had systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff supported people to maintain their health by making appropriate referrals to community health professionals and acting on any advice they were given;

• There were enough staff on shift to keep people safe and we observed staff usually responded to people in a timely manner throughout the day. Staff told us they thought there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. We have made a recommendation about the deployment of staff during mealtimes as we observed some people had to wait for support during lunchtime;

• People told us staff were kind and caring. We observed staff knew people well. People’s likes, dislikes and social histories were recorded in their care records. This helped staff get to know people well and care for them in a personalised way;

• Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled. They received regular training, supervisions and appraisals which supported them to conduct their roles effectively;

• People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice;

• People were happy with the food provided at Richmond Heights. The service catered for people's special dietary requirements and staff monitored food and fluid intake levels of people who were assessed to be at risk;

• A range of activities were provided for people living at Richmond Heights, such as ‘chairobics’, quizzes, games and external entertainers such as singers. We received mixed feedback about the activity schedule. Some people said there was plenty to do. Other people and some relatives said there was not much to do so they watched a lot of TV. We have made a recommendation about the involvement of care staff with the activity provision in the service;

• The provider had recently purchased a mini-bus so people could be supported to access the local community. People had recently been supported to visit a local country park and the pub for lunch. They had provided staff with positive feedback about these experiences;

• The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place. Information about how to complain was displayed in the entrance to the home. People and their relatives knew how to complain if they needed to;

• The provider and registered manager understood the regulatory requirements and monitored the quality and safety of the service on a regular basis;

• Staff provided positive feedback about how the home was run by the registered manager. Staff told us they enjoyed their jobs, their morale was positive and they told us the staff team worked very well together;

• More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good (published 17 August 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating awarded at the last inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor this service. We plan to complete a further inspection in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated good.