The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Red Houses

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

563-565 Stroude Road, Virginia Water, Surrey, GU25 4BQ (01344) 845240

Provided and run by:
Avenues South

All Inspections

1 March 2018

During a routine inspection

Red Houses provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a learning disability. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At the time of the inspection, six people were using the service.

At the last inspection of 19 October 2015, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

A registered manager was in post. We were informed that the registered manager was on leave and would not be returning to the service. A home manager had submitted an application for registration 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.

People were supported by staff who understood how to protect them from the risk of harm. Staff attended training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify and report abuse. People received appropriate care to manage known risks to their health and well-being.

The registered provider followed appropriate recruitment procedures to ensure people received care from suitable staff. People had their needs met by a sufficient number of suitably skilled and experienced staff.

People had their medicines managed and administered safely by staff who were trained to undertake this role. Staff reported, recorded and learnt from incidents and accidents. Staff followed good hygiene practices to prevent and control the risk of infection.

People’s care delivery met legislation requirements and best practice guidance. Staff received support and relevant training, refresher courses and supervision to empower them to undertake their roles. Staff obtained people’s consent to care and support.

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.

Staff understood and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) when providing care and support. People enjoyed the meals provided and received support with their dietary needs. Staff supported people to access healthcare services to maintain their health.

People received care that staff delivered in a respectful, compassionate and dignified manner. Staff promoted people’s right to privacy, confidentiality and equal opportunity. People enjoyed positive caring relationships with the staff who provided their care.

People received an ongoing review of their needs and support plans. Staff provided care in line with people’s changing needs and their preferences. People knew how to make a complaint and were confident their concerns would be addressed. People at the end of the lives were made comfortable and supported to have a dignified and pain free death.

People using the service, their relatives and staff commended the registered manager and the manner in which they managed the service. An open and honest culture placed people at the centre of the service. Quality assurance systems remained effective in identifying shortfalls at the service. The registered manager and provider had a continuous improvement drive to develop the service. People’s quality of care improved because of the involvement of other agencies in their care.

19 October 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection of Red Houses took place on 19 October 2015 and was unannounced.

Red Houses is a residential home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people, who are living with a learning disability and have complex needs. At the time of our inspection there were six people living there. Whilst people were unable to take part in full discussions, we were able to speak with and observe how they interacted with staff. The premises consisted of a detached bungalow with communal lounge, sensory room, kitchen and bathroom facilities which people used. There was also a spacious and secure garden for people to use.

At the time of our visit, Red Houses had a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe at Red Houses. Staff had a good understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm.

There was sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. People were supported by staff that had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff started work. Staff worked within best practice guidelines to ensure people’s care and support promoted well-being and independence.

Medicines were managed safely. Any changes to people’s medicines were prescribed by the person’s GP and administered appropriately.

Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Information about the home was given to people and consent was obtained prior to any care given. Where people had restrictions placed on them these were done in their best interests using appropriate safeguards. Staff had a clear understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) as well as their responsibilities in respect of this.

People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and were involved in the regular monitoring of their health. The home worked effectively with healthcare professionals and was pro-active in referring people for assessment or treatment.

Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes. Relatives and friends were able to visit. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted for example when personal care was undertaken.

People’s needs were assessed when they entered the home and on a continuous basis to reflect changes in their needs. People who wanted to move into the home would come on a trial period, so they could ascertain whether the home could meet their needs.

People were encouraged to voice their concerns or complaints about the home and there were different ways for their voices to be heard. Suggestions, concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity to learn and improve the home.

People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them. People were protected from social isolation through systems the home had in place. We found there were a range of activities available within the home and community.

The provider actively sought, encouraged and supported people’s involvement in the improvement of the home.

People’s care and welfare was monitored regularly to ensure their needs were met within a safe environment. The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. Management liaised with and obtained guidance and best practice techniques from external agencies and professional bodies.

People told us the staff were friendly and management were always approachable. Staff were encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the home. Staff told us they would report any concerns to their manager. Staff felt that management were very supportive.

23 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit we met and spoke with all six of the current residents who live at Red Houses. Whilst residents were not able to take part in structured interviews, due to their complex communication needs, we were able to spend time speaking with them and observing how they interacted with staff. We also interviewed a local authority practitioner by telephone following this visit, to get some independent feedback about the service.

From the observations we made, indications were that residents were comfortable and happy in their home. We noted people who lived at this service were included in decisions about their day to day activities as much as possible. Staff sought consent from people, either verbally or by observing people's body language. We noted some residents were able to attract the attention of staff when they needed assistance with their care and welfare. We saw that staff understood the needs of residents and communicated well with them, and there was a homely atmosphere within the home.

Arrangements for managing mealtimes worked well and we noted that the special dietary needs of residents were catered for. The home was kept clean and fresh throughout and had received no complaints since the last inspection. Staff recruitment records, in the main, were well kept.

30 August 2012

During a routine inspection

We met all six residents who lived at Red Houses but were unable to carry out detailed interviews with them due to their special communication needs. However, we made observations during our visit which demonstrated that people were treated respectfully by staff, and that they were well cared for, supported to make choices and had their preferences taken into account. Staff were knowledgeable about people's care needs and understood their particular communication requirements.