Richmond Hall Care Home

Who the service is for

This service provides support to older people with nursing needs, physical disabilities and sensory impairments.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 1 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. The provider had a system in place to ensure where people required a DoLS these were in place and care plans reflected the content. Applications were made and tracked to ensure these were always up to date. Staff had knowledge of who had a DoLS in place and what this meant for each person.

A system was in place to record, review and analyse incidents. Safeguarding referrals were completed and staff understood how to raise any concerns. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and plans were in place to minimise these. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and training and support were in place. A staff member told us, “There is enough staff on all floors. Training was good, physical training and online was good. I received enough support.” Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.

People had their needs assessed and care plans were in place to provide care. Outcomes were monitored through monthly reviews and where needs had changed, updates were shared with staff. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people had their capacity assessed and decisions made in their best interests as needed.

People received person-centred care from staff who were kind, caring and responsive to their individual needs and preferences. Staff promoted people’s independence and offered them choice. A staff member told us, “We have a menu system, for instance today we go round and ask them tomorrows meal preference. If someone changes their mind, we give them what they want.” Staff were aware of the need to protect peoples privacy and ensure they received dignified care. A staff member told us, “During personal care we make sure they are well covered up, some people request gender specific staff for their care so we respect that and make sure they aren’t exposed with curtains and blind shut. Dignity is respected.”

People were involved in all aspects of their care and were able to raise any concerns they may have with the registered manager. Audits were carried out regularly to check the service people received, and learning processes were in place to drive continuous improvement. The culture at the home was positive, with the registered manager and staff ensuring people had care that met their individual needs, including taking account of protected characteristics. A staff member told us, “We make sure that everyone is treated equally, we make sure there's no discrimination.”

Some improvements were needed to how risks related to the environment were managed. For example, we observed staff not consistently securing areas which may pose a risk to people’s safety and there were concerns over the mechanisms in place to secure windows. The registered manager took immediate action to address this, and the provider sought prompt support to rectify the concerns.