Redcourt

We found the following examples of good practice.

• During the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, staff moved in to the home to reduce the risk of them contracting or spreading coronavirus.

• At the time of the inspection the home was closed to visitors. People were supported to keep in touch with relatives over the phone or with video calls.

• The provider had sourced supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and staff wore this appropriately.

• The provider had policies for the safe prevention and management of coronavirus, and these reflected current government and best practice guidelines.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse. Staff knew what action to take if they suspected abuse. Relevant risk assessments had been completed and actions were taken to reduce risks to people. The environment was monitored and safe for people to live in. We identified some concerns with the management of medicines; however, action was being taken by the registered manager to rectify these. Sufficient staff were available to meet people care and support needs. Staff received the training they required for their roles and received supervision and appraisal.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and they were supported to be part of the local community.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Relevant mental capacity assessments had been completed and care was planned in their best interests when they could not make a decision.

People were relaxed and happy with staff and when they were upset or distressed, they sought the support of staff, who responded quickly to provide reassurance. They were supported to express their views and opinions, which were listened to and acted upon. Staff knew people well and this enabled them to respond effectively and with an understanding of each person’s preferences and wishes.

People received responsive care and support from staff who were well trained and demonstrated the principles of person centred care within their work. Care contained relevant information about how to meet people's needs and were regularly reviewed.

The home continued to be well led. The management team provided daily leadership and support. Staff felt able to raise concerns and discuss issues openly. People using the service knew the management team well and showed trust in them. Quality assurance processes were in place and actions were taken to address issues identified in the audits.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: Good (Last report published in May 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

Redcourt is a care home situated in Glossop. The service offers personal and social care to a maximum of 20 adults with a learning disability. Some people have associated conditions that may include, autism, dementia, sensory and communication difficulties. At the time of the inspection there were ten people using the service.

Redcourt is required to have a registered manager. There was a manager who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The home was focused on each person and accounted for personal likes, dislikes, needs and preferences. We found staff encouraged people to make their own day to day decisions and staff respected those decisions whilst ensuring and being aware of people’s safety.

People were encouraged to take part in activities of their choice. The staff supported each person whilst being aware of promoting their independence.

People’s right to privacy and dignity was promoted and respected by the staff.

People were cared for by staff who had demonstrated their suitability for their role. Recruitment procedures were safe and included Disclosure and Barring service (DBS) checks.

Staff were aware of the need to keep people safe and protect them from the risk of potential harm. Staff were aware of local safeguarding procedures to ensure any alleged abuse was recorded and reported to the local authority.

The principles and requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been met. Best interest decisions and capacity assessments had been completed when required and were in people’s care plans.

Staff received training to ensure they were providing appropriate and effective care and support for the people.

There was good team work being carried out. Staff felt supported by the manager and the management team

Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely and in accordance with current guidance.

The home and people’s bedrooms were decorated in a manner that reflected the needs and personalities of each person.

Effective auditing systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. Meetings took place with the people living at the service to collect their opinions and views.

People we spoke with expressed high levels of satisfaction with the service provided to them. A relative told us, "Staff do a brilliant job. It is good care. I can't fault them." Another relative told us, "They completed a very detailed life story for X. I was really glad they did that. They asked me for information too."

We saw that assessments of capacity had been completed and reviewed regularly. Best interests meetings had been arranged where needed and included family members, staff from the service and other professionals. This meant the provider had followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Care and support plans provided detailed information about people's needs. Staff had the information they needed to support people.

There was detailed information about each person's health care needs. A range of health care professionals had been involved where necessary and a monthly clinical meeting to review each person's health needs had been arranged.

Medicines had been securely stored in people's bedrooms, involving them as much as possible in taking their medication.

There had been sufficient numbers of qualified and experienced staff on duty to meet people's needs.

The complaints procedure was available to people using the service in picture form.

We saw that people's dignity and rights were respected at the home, and that care planning was detailed and personalised.

We found that steps were taken to ensure the right people were employed at Redcourt, and that staff were well trained and knew how to protect people from abuse.

We saw that quality monitoring systems were used at Redcourt and the a plan was in place to ensure continuous improvement at the home.

We found that although people were consulted about what they did on a daily basis, that consent was not always being properly sought for people's care at Redcourt.