Archived: Richmond House

On the day of the inspection we met all seven people living at Richmond House. We talked with two people about their experience of care at Richmond House and we spoke with the relative of one person. We talked with five staff and looked at records. We subsequently talked with relatives of two other people by telephone and a community psychiatric nurse who visited the service on a regular basis. Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff and people we spoke with told us that they felt safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve. The service had policies and procedures in place for assessment of people under the Mental Capacity Act and for Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. On the day of the inspection all the people who lived at Richmond House were assessed as having capacity.

People were cared for in a service that was safe, clean and hygienic. Risk assessments were in place in individual support plans in relation to activities of daily living. Staff personnel records contained all the information required which meant that the provider could demonstrate that the staff employed to work in the home were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people living at Richmond House. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of the service and were reviewed and adjusted to address any changing needs.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt that their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and they knew them well. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living in the home. People's health and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Staff spoke with pride about the progress that individual people had made whilst they had been living at Richmond House. Relatives we spoke with were able to describe specific benefits to the health and wellbeing of their relatives living at Richmond House and the impact that this had had on their daily life. One person told us. "[Their] mobility has been poor, the mobility is getting better and has improved to the point of joining a walking group".

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were supported to be as independent as possible. People who used the service were invited to complete an annual survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised, these were addressed. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People were regularly involved in a range of activities inside and outside the service. The home supported people to take part in activities within the local community which included visiting local places of interest and shopping. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and two people we spoke with told us that they felt that they could talk with any of the staff if they had a concern or were worried about anything.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to ensure that people received their care in a joined up way. The service had a quality assurance system which included planned audits. Records seen by us showed that complaints were investigated appropriately. People who lived in the service, staff and relatives were asked for their views. Any identified shortfalls were addressed promptly and as a result the service was constantly improving. When we spoke with a visiting community psychiatric nurse, they told us that they believed that the service was well run and was a positive place for people to live. Staff told us that they felt well supported by the manager.

People told us that they were happy living at the home and did not have any complaints. One person told us, ''If you have a problem staff help you to solve it.' Another person told us, 'I have been happy here.'

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People had monthly meetings with their 'key workers' at which they talked about their well being.

We found that people's care records provided detailed information about their needs and preferences. We saw positive interactions between staff and people living at the home. This meant that people received care that met their needs.

Suitable systems were in place to support people with their medicines. Medicines were kept securely and administered safely.

We saw the service operated an effective recruitment procedure that ensured staff were of good character and had the competencies and skills to meet the needs of the people who lived at Richmond House

There were systems in place to monitor how the home was run, to ensure people received a quality service.