Redstacks

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff demonstrated a positive learning culture and were open to reflection and improvement. They routinely discussed incidents and changes in people’s needs during handovers and used guidance from senior staff to adjust support. Staff confirmed they were comfortable raising issues and felt listened to by managers.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People experienced safe admission, assessment and care planning processes. Staff had access to up‑to‑date electronic care plans which were reviewed frequently and updated when needs changed. Information was shared appropriately between services.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff understood safeguarding processes and were confident in reporting concerns. Managers monitored safeguarding themes as part of governance processes. Relatives consistently told us they felt people were safe at Redstacks. Another relative commented, “[Name] is happy at Redstacks and feels safe.” Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation submissions had been made appropriately. The registered manager tracked and monitored these.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and relatives told us they were involved in discussions about risks and care planning. However, this was not always clear from records. Staff knew individuals well and used this knowledge to tailor support, for example, adjusting activities, nutrition and positional changes to mitigate risks. Relatives confirmed they were informed about changes or emerging risks, including skin integrity concerns, GP involvement or incidents. One relative said, “I’m kept fully informed of [Name]’s progress and contacted on any medical issues.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The environment was well maintained. Repairs and equipment servicing were carried out as required and safety checks were recorded. Regular fire drills took place, and people had detailed individual personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs). Staff demonstrated safe practice, such as moving people’s mobility aids to prevent trip hazards.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. However, at the last inspection we identified gaps in exploring employment history and this had not been addressed. The registered manager took action when we discussed this with them.

People were supported by consistent staff who knew them well. Staffing levels met people’s needs, with a senior on shift at all times and additional support from the deputy manager and registered manager. Staff told us they had enough time to provide unrushed care, with one saying, “We manage easily, even when it’s busy.” Staff received regular supervision, were supported with training and several were undertaking qualifications.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was visibly clean and adhered to infection control procedures. Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly. Designated storage for cleaning materials and equipment was well organised. Infection control audits were completed monthly and actions followed up. People at higher risk, including those with wounds, continence needs or catheters, had clear care plans and monitoring. Staff supported people with regular hygiene checks. Relatives told us they observed good standards of cleanliness and personal care.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. However, there were gaps in the recording of transdermal patch application and topical creams. Protocols for medicines prescribed on an ‘as and when’ basis (PRN) were not immediately available when staff were administering medicines. The registered manager took immediate action to resolve these concerns.