- Care home
Redstacks
Assessment report published 10 February 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 28 January to 4 February 2026.
Redstacks is a small residential care home providing care and support to up to 14 older people, some of whom live with dementia. There were 12 people living at the service on the day we visited.
At the last inspection we found two breaches of regulation relating to safe care and governance. At this inspection the service is no longer in breach of regulations.
Care was safe and well managed. Safeguarding procedures were understood and embedded in daily practice.
The environment was clean, well maintained and dementia friendly. Regular safety checks took place. Personalised rooms reflected people’s identities.
Staffing levels were appropriate and consistent. Staff spoke positively about teamworking. They told us they felt valued and listened to.
Care was delivered in line with evidence-based guidance. Staff worked well with external professionals, ensuring timely referrals and co-ordinated care.
People were supported to maintain their independence and enjoyed personal activities relevant to them.
Governance systems were effective, with regular audits and structured and planned oversight. This encouraged continuous improvement. However, there were gaps in the recording of medicines needing a body map and checks in employment histories.
Overall, there was a strong culture of kindness, safety and personalised care at Redstacks. The stable, dedicated workforce along with visible and involved managers ensured a well-run and compassionate service committed to ongoing improvement.
People's experience of this service
People, and their relatives, consistently told us they felt safe, well cared for and treated with kindness and respect at Redstacks. The atmosphere was calm and welcoming. People and relatives consistently described the home as safe, responsive and exceptionally caring. One relative described it as, “A model care home.” People felt well supported, respected and treated with genuine compassion by staff.
People said staff knew them well and supported them in ways that reflected their needs and preferences. Relatives spoke highly of staff. One told us, “Nothing is too much trouble [for staff].” Another described staff as “walking saints”. A family member who visits regularly told us they had, “Never experienced anything other than ultra‑caring staff. I cannot praise them highly enough.”
Relatives told us they felt reassured that their loved ones were safe and well looked after. They described staff as attentive to people’s changing health. One family member said, “Any medical issues result in a swift response. I am kept fully informed.”
People’s care plans reflected detailed information about their needs, including communication differences, risk of pressure damage, continence, swallowing needs and personal routines. For example, one person who had undergone a recent difficult operation received emotional support and careful monitoring of pressure areas, and staff adapted care to promote this person’s independence where possible. Another person required full support with eating and drinking due to dysphagia. Staff followed detailed specialist advice and used tailored approaches to ensure safety and minimise distress during meals.
The service’s small size supported a strong sense of familiarity. Relatives repeatedly highlighted the kindness and compassion shown. Comments included, “Every aspect of [Name’s] care is good. Staff demonstrate appropriate respect for [Name’s] dignity” and “The care and attention for [Name] is exceptional. I can’t fault them at all.” People and relatives spoke about a strong sense of belonging. People said staff, “All have lovely smiles” and were “Very, very good.”
Staff consistently addressed people by name, gently explaining actions, and checking for comfort. Staff used eye‑level communication, touch for reassurance, and unhurried approaches. At lunchtime, people were given choices about where to sit, food was described to them, and staff showed patience and warmth. People enjoyed a positive, relaxed dining experience with staff offering encouragement and supporting people to remain as independent as possible. People who preferred to eat in their rooms had these preferences respected. Everyone we spoke with praised the food. Relative’s comments included, “[Name] eats well. He will have 3 meals a day but if he fancies something at other times they will get it for him” and “The food is really good. [Name] is well fed.”
Relatives said activities were available, though several noted that many people had limited ability or interest in group sessions. Staff told us they asked people each day what they would like to do, and activities such as dominoes, jigsaws, crafts and trips to local garden centres were popular. One family member said their relative enjoyed, “Regular games including dominoes and visits to garden centres.” Photos were always shared afterwards.
People’s individual identities and histories were understood and respected. Rooms were personalised, and family members said staff actively supported people to stay connected with their loved ones, including daily phone and video calls for those with family abroad. One relative said staff were, “Extremely accommodating, always attentive.”
Care plans described how people should be supported to make decisions wherever possible. Staff adapted communication to individual needs, such as using short sentences, allowing additional time, and providing visual choices when helpful.