We carried out a review of the data available to us about Richmond Village Coventry on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Richmond Village Coventry, you can give feedback on this service.
The village consisted of a range of support services for people, including supported living accommodation, a bowling green, a pond and outside seating areas.
People's experience of using this service:
•Richmond Village Coventry was clean and comfortable with plenty of room for people to live. People told us they felt safe with staff.
•People's safety had been considered and risks were managed to maintain their safety.
•Staff had received training in relation to safeguarding and knew how to protect people from harm.
•Medicine was managed safely.
•The risk of any infection spreading was reduced by the maintenance of good hygiene practice.
•The provider delivered person-centred care. People’s needs were assessed in detail to ensure the service could be tailored to meet their individual social, care and health needs.
•People’s outcomes and long-term goals were considered, to ensure people achieved those goals.
•People were supported to have 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.
•Health care was focussed on ensuring people's ongoing wellbeing and concentrated on improving people’s health.
•People enjoyed living at the home and told us staff were kind and respectful of their choices.
•People were treated kindly and compassionately by staff.
•People were supported to express their views and make decisions about the care and treatment they received.
•Staff respected people's privacy and dignity.
•People were supported to take part in activities of their choice.
•Information was provided in a range of formats to support people’s understanding.
•People could access spiritual support to meet their religious beliefs.
•The provider had a complaints policy and process in place; people told us they would feel comfortable raising complaints.
•When people reached the end of their life, the provider had policies in place to meet their wishes and preferences.
•The provider had quality monitoring arrangements through which they continually reviewed, evaluated and improved people's care.
•People, stakeholders and staff had an opportunity to shape the service.
•The provider invested in staff development to ensure people received care from experienced and caring leaders.
Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Richmond Village Coventry was published in October 2016.
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was scheduled to take place in line with Care Quality Commission scheduling guidelines for adult social care services.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure it meets its regulatory requirements.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
The registered manager had been in post for three years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 51 people. They provide respite or longer term care for adults of all ages and specialise in care for people who may have dementia or physical disabilities. Forty four people were living at the home at the time of our inspection. The home was part of the provider’s ’village’ which included other types of accommodation and services. The home comprised a hairdressing salon, a restaurant for people who lived in the home and their visitors and a small shop in the communal foyer.
People told us they felt safe using the service and staff understood how to protect people from abuse. There were processes to minimise risks associated with people’s care to keep them safe. This included the completion of risk assessments to identify and manage risks to people’s health and well-being and checks on staff to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service. People's medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.
There were enough suitably trained staff to deliver care and support to people. Two health professionals we spoke with provided positive feedback about the care provided by staff. Staff received an induction and a programme of training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively. Staff were encouraged to reflect on their practice and to develop their skills and knowledge, which improved people's experience of care.
The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). For people who were assessed as not having the capacity to make all of their own decisions, records showed that their families, legal representatives and healthcare professionals were involved in making decisions in their best interests. Staff understood the principles of the MCA, they respected people’s decisions and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care.
People told us staff were kind and caring and had the right skills and experience to provide the care and support they required. Staff treated people in a way that respected their dignity and promoted their independence.
People were supported to maintain their important relationships and their personal interests. They were encouraged to attend activity sessions and entertainments were provided at the home that people remembered with pleasure.
People were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. Care was planned to meet people’s individual needs and preferences and care plans were reviewed. People knew how to complain and were able to share their views and opinions about the service they received.
Staff felt supported and there was an open culture at the home with good communication between people. People were encouraged to share ideas to make improvements to the service. There were checks in place to ensure good standards of care were maintained, however we found that identified actions had not always been carried out following the checks.