Richmond Village Aston On Trent Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not make sure people’s care plans were tailored to the person and fully reflective of their needs. The provider had not always ensured people received effective support with their oral health. For example, people’s care plans identified people had not been supported to see a dentist or receive dental treatment within the last 24 months. We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives in relation to them being involved in the planning of their care to ensure care is centred around their individual needs. However, observations of care being delivered during on our onsite visit showed positive interactions between people and staff.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People told us they receive care from the same staff, which ensured continuity of care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Documentation was displayed throughout the home in formats which enabled people to receive information in a clear and transparent way.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. However, we received mixed feedback in this area. Some people and relatives told us they felt listened to, whilst others told us they felt communication was poor from the service and action was not always taken in response to concerns.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider had emergency protocols in place which included access to out of hours support. For example, a management on call system.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff had appropriate training to help them understand equality and avoid discrimination.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Care plans were not always in place for to show where they had planned for their future, including end of life care. Where plans had been made, these were not always accurate of people’s wishes. For example, we identified a person’s care plans contained inconsistent information and guidance in relation to their personalised recommendations for clinical care in a future emergency. This meant this person may have been at risk of not having their wishes and preferences met in the event of a medical emergency.