Richmond Village Aston On Trent 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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care needs were routinely reviewed on a monthly basis. However, reviews were not always effective in ensuring staff were provided with sufficient and up to date information. However, we found people’s needs were appropriately assessed at the time of admission and staff told us they felt confident they were given enough information to support and care for people safely.

The service did not always ensure care records were fully reflective of people’s care and support needs and their wishes. For example, we observed a person who had been assessed as requiring support at mealtimes, and followed a specialist diet, did not receive this. We later identified the person chose not to receive supervision and at times chose to eat food which placed them at risk of harm. However, their care records had not been updated to reflect this choice and how this risk could be mitigated. We found the service was not always working in line with national guidelines and evidence-based good practice. Such as, in relation to infection prevention and control and medicines.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Where people received care from a range of different staff, teams or services, the service worked collaboratively to ensure peoples' needs were met. For example, they worked with the district nursing team where people required additional support with their skin integrity and continence care.

The service did not always support people to manage their health and well-being effectively. Records did not always show guidance around healthcare needs were being followed. For example, we identified gaps in records where people should have been supported with their repositioning. This meant we could not be fully assured people were supported effectively with their pressure relief.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. A relative of a person we spoke with told us, “The change in [family member] is amazing, they are chatting, laughing and their confidence has come back”.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us staff gain their consent prior to supporting them with care tasks.