Richard House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s care and risks relating to their care had been effectively assessed and reviewed. However, not all relatives had been involved in reviews. The registered manager and the provider had oversight of people’s risks and ensured staff were following best practices and national guidelines when giving care. People’s capacity and ability to consent to care had been considered in planning and managing their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People we spoke with said they felt involved in planning their care and could ask for things to be done differently if they wished. Most relatives said they were involved in reviews of their loved one’s care. However, some relatives said they had not been able to attend arranged reviews, these reviews were not rearranged for a compatible date, and they were not given feedback from the review.

The registered manager informed us that people and their families were invited to care review meetings, where care plans are updated. Were the person agreed the families could be sent copies of care plans if needed. Staff told us they talked to people about their care needs. The service had team handover sheets in order to keep all staff aware of any changes of assessed needs.

The service had effective systems and processes in place to monitor peoples needs. They used a capacity tracker to score and monitor all identified needs using nationally recognised tools such as Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and Waterlow assessment tool. The service had an electronic care records system that would alert the registered manager and the data and insight manger if care needs were not being met. We reviewed peoples care records, people’s needs were assessed with risk assessments in place that were followed by staff. Staff had the information needed to support people with their assessed risk.

We did not collect the evidence to score this evidence type. People and their relatives were not able to comment on this issue.

The registered manager and the care manager told us they monitored and mentored the care team to ensure that they were following organisational and national policies to promote the delivery of evidence based care. Staff had information they needed regarding people’s diet including allergies and if they need any specific diet in order to meet their care needs.

The providers systems and processes were effective in assuring staff at the service delivered evidence based care. They used national recognised risk assessments to monitor peoples care needs. Systems and processes alerted the registered manager when care targets were not being met.

People’s families told us that staff work well together to meet the needs of their loved ones. We were told that people were supported with hospital and other health related appointments.

Staff told us they worked well together and with other services. The registered manager had been working closely with the services G. P service to improve the relationships between the Service and the G.P. The service supported people at the service to gain access to health care services.

Commissioners told us that staff and managers at the service had worked to build better relationships with the G.P and community nurses to improve the service for people.

The provider has several internal teams in place to support the running of all their homes. This included maintenance, quality assurance and senior leaders. The service had built good working relationships the local authority and health services.

People’s families told us that their family members were happy, they were able to access the community if they wished to do so. Where people wanted to do so they were involved in activities organised by the service.

Staff told us that people’s health and well-being was supported at the service. They told us that people were supported to have a healthy diet whilst being given choice. People that were able were supported to go to the local park and shops and that there was a range of activities for people to take part in. The registered manager told us of a football match between children from a local school and people at the service.

The service had an activities person employed at the service as well as external visitors who supported with activities such as a local vicar who held a church service in the cinema room at the service.

People and their relatives who we spoke to did not tell us their opinion on monitoring and improving outcomes at the service.

The registered manager told us how they had improved the services relationship with the G.P and the district nurses in order to improve people’s outcomes.

The service monitored peoples care support as well as any specific health care needs such as diabetes, fluid intake and where needed pressure care. Falls and incidents were monitored. Care plans were reviewed regularly and whenever there were any changes in a person’s care needs.

People told us they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. People said they were able to choice when to go to bed and when to get up in the morning. They told us that staff asked them how they wanted to be supported before supporting them to meet their care needs.

Staff told us they build relationships with the people living at the service, that they ask them before supporting them. If people were unable to give consent, they would give them options and get to know the person’s body language and facial expressions. Both staff and managers talked to us about people having the right to refuse care, but that this would be monitored to ensure they were supporting the person in their best interest.

The service kept and maintained records of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications. There were mental capacity assessments in people’s care records for expected circumstances. Staff recognised that some people at the service had fluctuating capacity and worked with the person to ensure they were receiving care in their best interest.