You are here

Archived: Redlynch House Residential Home

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 June 2014
Date of Publication: 8 July 2014
Inspection Report published 08 July 2014 PDF | 92.51 KB


Inspection carried out on 12 June 2014

During a routine inspection

An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

During this inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, two relatives, one health care professional and two visitors. We observed how people spent their time and their interactions with staff. We reviewed care plans and other records relating to the management of the home.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

People and relatives told us they felt the service was safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place but did not give staff clear guidance of how to process a safeguarding alert to make sure action was being taken to safeguard people from abuse.

Risks associated with people’s care delivery were identified during assessments, and staff had guidance for staff to follow, to make sure people were being cared for as safely as possible.

Some areas in the service were in need of redecoration and repair to make sure people were living in a service which was adequately maintained.

There were systems in place to record accidents/incidents but these had not been analysed to identify trends and patterns to make sure that the staff learnt from events, to prevent them from happening again.

At the time of the inspection there was sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people using the service.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). There were no Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations in place, and no applications had been made.

Is the service effective?

People had their needs assessed prior to moving into the service, including visits to the service.

People told us that they were satisfied with the care they received, and felt their needs were met. Relatives said they were satisfied with the care and support people received. We saw that staff knew the people well and understood people’s care and support needs.

Care plans were in place for each person, which were personalised with details of people’s routines, and staff demonstrated they knew how to care for the people in line with their preferences and choices.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure their health care needs were met.

Staff meetings were in place to give staff an opportunity to voice their opinions of the service. However, the programme of regular supervision and appraisals were not being completed to make sure staff development was recorded and achieved.

Is the service caring?

People told us the staff were kind and caring. They said: “The staff are friendly, kind and caring”. “The food is good”. “Would not want to be anywhere else”. “The place is terrific; you could not get a better place”. “I am very fond of the home, it is a family atmosphere”. “Staff know us well and could tell if we were unhappy”.

Relatives spoke positively about the staff and said that staff were kind and respectful.

Staff said: “This is a family run service; everyone wants the best for the residents”. “We always put the residents first”.

People told us they were treated with dignity and had their privacy respected.

Is the service responsive?

The last survey was sent to people using the service last year and the annual service for this year was in the process of being sent out to people so they had an opportunity to voice their opinions of the service. However, there was a lack of evidence of other opportunities to offer views and feedback, such as residents meetings.

We found that there were limited activities in place. People told us that there were not many activities in the home, however some people said this was fine as they were happy doing what they wanted to do. We saw that people were able to spend time as they wished within the service.

Is the service well-led?

Quality assurance processes were in place. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and that they felt supported by the management team. They told us the management team were very approachable.

Systems were in place to ask people their views about the service; however people were not routinely involved in their care reviews.

The service did not have effective systems in place to provide on-going monitoring of the care being provided; therefore shortfalls found during this inspection had not been identified and acted upon.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager, even though supervision was not up to date and they had not been receiving an annual appraisal .