You are here

Archived: Redlynch House Residential Home


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 .

Inspection carried out on 4 March 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

Our inspection on 18 June 2013 found that people had not always been protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. The provider had been unable to evidence that the fire risk assessment had been reviewed, and outstanding actions addressed. The provider had not taken action to investigate and address problems regarding hot water temperatures that were higher than the recommended safety limits. Some staff had required updated training and training records had been incomplete.

At this inspection, we found that the home had undertaken a review of the fire risk assessment to identify the fire safety arrangements that were required to minimise risks to people, staff and visitors. We found that the home had recorded the actions they had taken in accordance with the requirements of the fire risk assessment.

We found that detailed records were kept to identify the checks and tests that were undertaken of the hot water temperatures in the home, and the actions taken to rectify any problems that arose.

We found that the home had introduced detailed staff training records that identified a range of training that had been undertaken since our last inspection. Staff told us that their training had been updated, including the completion of formal qualifications in care.

Inspection carried out on 18 June 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection, there were 11 people living in the home. We spoke with four people who lived at the home, two visiting relatives and a healthcare professional, who was visiting at the time of our inspection.

People told us that they liked the home, they were treated with respect and that staff knew and understood their needs and preferences. One person told us “it is more like a family and I am treated with respect”.

People said their health care needs were met and they saw community nurses and doctors when they needed to. We found that the staff worked well with healthcare professionals and were receptive to any advice and support they provided. Care plans and risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly to minimise identified risks to people who lived at the home.

People said that they could spend their time as they chose and that staff respected their decisions. One visitor to the home told us that they visited regularly and had never had any concerns. They said that they always found the staff to be “very patient and sensitive”.

We found that the premises had undergone recent works to improve and repair two of the bathrooms. Service contracts were in place to safely maintain specialist equipment.

We found that there were shortfalls in providing staff with appropriate training, although the manager had plans in place to address this. We also found some concerns regarding how checks to the premises had been followed up.

Inspection carried out on 25 March 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of the inspection 12 people were living at the home. We spoke with five people about their experience of living there and with two relatives who were visiting.

People said they liked the home and their needs were met in the ways they preferred. They said they made choices about their day to day lives. People chose when to get up and go to bed, what to do and what to eat. People said “we say when we would like a bath “, “I am very well looked after” and “you are not rushed at all. It’s a home from home, I can go downstairs or into the garden when I want to and do what I like”.

People were happy with the care they received. They said “if there is anything needs doing I just call them” and “they come quickly when I use the bell”. People said they their health needs were well met and they saw healthcare professionals when they needed to.

People said the service was homely and had a family atmosphere. People told us they felt safe and knew who to speak with if they were not happy with anything. One person said “I like it very much, staff are here to help me”.

People liked the meals and said there was plenty of choice. They said “we have what we like for meals” and “its very good food, and they can always find an alternative if you don’t like anything”.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service the home provided. They included asking people informally for their views about it and making checks that the home was safe.

Inspection carried out on 4, 9 February 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us that staff treat them with respect and they are supported to make decisions about their lives. They said they were happy with the care and support they receive and felt “very lucky to live in such a wonderful place”. People did not know what care plans or risk assessments were, or if they had one, and we found that most people did not have anything written down by the service about how it was going to help and support them when they needed it.

People trusted the staff and felt cared for and listened to. People are looked after well when the are ill and the staff make sure they contact doctors and nurses if they are needed.

People really love their bedrooms and the lounges, and said that it was a comfortable and homely place to live.