Richmond Village Coventry

There were usually sufficient numbers of staff to support people’s needs. Recruitment procedures required a number of checks to ensure staff were deemed suitable to work with people. Some of the checks for temporary staff needed to be more robust.

There was a positive culture in the home which was reflected in our conversations with managers and staff. Staff described an open culture where diversity was recognised and supported. Staff felt valued by the management team and said management staff were accessible if they needed them. Staff felt able to speak up and were motivated to further their skills and knowledge to support people effectively.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities most people take for granted. The provider recognised some people were at risk of inequality due to their disabilities and completed a range of checks to identify any specific needs to ensure these were supported. Care plans were developed with people where they were able to help ensure their choices and preferences were identified and respected. Staff had a good knowledge of the people they supported and knew their communication preferences which helped them to provide person centred care.

Governance systems ensured accidents and incidents, concerns, or potential abuse were recognised and managed effectively. Staff understood their responsibilities to ensure any incidents or concerns they noted were reported to management for escalation and investigation. The environment was clean and well organised with regular health and safety checks completed. However, sometimes records of checks were not fully clear to show risks were effectively managed and all areas and equipment were safe.

Communication across the service was effective. Daily meetings ensured any learning or information staff needed to know was shared. Staff completed medicines training and our review of medicines showed they were managed safely and appropriately.

Staff were able to access health professionals for advice and support when needed. Effective governance processes were in place to ensure the ongoing quality of the service. The provider sought feedback from people who used the service. Where suggestions had been made, changes in practice had occurred demonstrating people were listened to. There were comprehensive systems to support effective governance of the service.