Richardson Court

Updated 19 March 2020

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. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

One inspector visited on both days.

Service and service type

Richardson Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are 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 the inspection

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

We reviewed the information we held about the service including previous inspection reports. We also looked at notifications about important events that had taken place in the service, which the provider is required to tell us by law. We contacted health and social care professionals to obtain feedback about their experience of the service. These professionals included local authority commissioners, the local authority safeguarding team and Healthwatch. 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 all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

Some people were unable to verbally tell us about their experiences, so we made observations of care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with four staff, deputy manager, registered manager, locality manager and operations director.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people's care records and multiple medicines records. We looked at a variety of records relating to the management of the service, including audits and checks, maintenance records, accident and incident records and policies and procedures.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at maintenance of the premises, quality assurance and auditing information. We spoke to two relatives by telephone and received feedback from two healthcare professionals.

Updated 19 March 2020

About the service

Richardson Court is a care home that provides personal care for up to nine people with a

learning disability. At the time of the inspection eight people lived at the service. The service was split between a main house which six people lived in and a cottage within the grounds of the main house which two people lived in. The main house was split over two floors, all bedrooms were single occupancy, one with ensuite facilities and other people had a private hand wash basin. The cottage was split over two floors and had three bedrooms. People living in either the Court or Cottage had access to communal bathrooms, lounge, dining room, kitchen and garden.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them. People's participation within the local community was encouraged and enabled.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Since our last inspection maintenance work had been carried out to improve the environment. Some further cosmetic work was required. However, the service was warm, safe and had homely touches throughout. People were supported to stay safe. Risks were assessed, monitored, reviewed and staff understood how to recognise abuse and the processes to follow should they have any concerns. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to identify any patterns or trends so any lessons could be learnt. There were enough staff to meet people's needs and staff had a good knowledge of the people they supported. Medicines were managed safely, and staff were competency checked to ensure mistakes were minimised.

Peoples needs were assessed before they moved in to the service and further assessments made to meet people’s needs. Peoples capacity to make specific decisions was assessed and best interest decisions made with the involvement of other important individuals. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. People chose their own food and drink and staff knew how to support people with specific eating and drinking requirements. Staff were trained and knowledgeable about their roles. People were supported to remain well and healthy.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected, people were encouraged to be independent. Peoples diversities were considered and respected. We observed people being encouraged and supported to make their own choices and decisions. Staff spoke to people in a kind and considerate way, people appeared relaxed in their home and freely moved around the service.

Care plans reflected people’s needs, guidance was implemented so staff knew how to offer support in a consistent way. Relatives were communicated with and involved in their loved one’s care. People took part in various activities and outings. Peoples communication needs were assessed, and staff knew how to communicate with people in their preferred way. No complaints had been made since the last inspection. A complaints procedure described how people could make a complaint or raise a concern, an easy read version was available.

There was an open and inclusive culture in the service. The registered manager encouraged staff and other individuals to feedback what could change so the service could improve. Monitoring of staff performance was more robust. Auditing was in place which identified any areas of concern and action was taken in response to this.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 19 March 2019) and there were four breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.