You are here

Redcote Residential Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 June 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 10 and 11 April 2018. Redcote Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Redcote Residential Home is registered to accommodate up to 28 older people in one building. Some of these people were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, 26 people were using the service.

A registered manager was present during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

During the home’s previous inspection on 20 August 2015, we rated the home overall as ‘Good’ although the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ for the question, ‘Is the service safe?’ During this inspection, we found some areas of concern and the overall rating has now changed to ‘Requires Improvement’. The details of the reasons why are explained in the summary below and in the body of the main report.

People felt safe living at the home. Staff understood the processes for protecting people from avoidable harm. People’s medicines were managed safely however, protocols for the consistent administration of ‘as needed medicines’ were not always in place. The risks to people’s safety had been assessed and care plans were in place to support people safely. There were enough staff to keep people safe, however the staff were not always deployed appropriately, which could place people at risk. Accidents and incidents were regularly reviewed, assessed and investigated by the registered manager. The home was clean and tidy.

People’s physical, mental health and social needs were assessed and provided in line with current legislation and best practice guidelines, although guidance for some conditions such as Parkinson’s disease was needed. People were supported by trained staff who had their performance regularly assessed. However, few staff had received an annual appraisal of their work. Staff felt supported by the registered manager. People spoke positively about the food; however, the lunchtime experienced was unorganised with some people waiting longer for their meals than others.

The registered manager had built effective relationships with external health and social care organisations and people’s health was regularly monitored. However, information for people within the home about their health conditions was limited. The environment had been adapted to ensure people who had mental or physical disabilities were able to lead fulfilling lives. However, more directional signage was needed to support people living with dementia to orientate themselves independently around the home. 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, although some assessments of people’s capacity to make decisions required more detail.

People and relatives liked the staff and found them to be kind, caring and respectful. Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy. People felt able to make decisions about their care and felt the staff respected those decisions. People were encouraged to lead as independent a life as possible. People were provided with access to an independent advocate if they needed one, although information about how to do so independently was not available.

People’s care records were person centred and guidance was provided for staff on how each person would like to be cared for. Some records required older information t

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 June 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

People felt safe living at the home. Staff understood the processes for protecting people from avoidable harm.

People’s medicines were managed safely however, protocols for the consistent administration of as needed medicines were not always in place.

The risks to people’s safety had been assessed and care plans were in place to support people safely.

There enough staff to keep people safe, however the staff were not always deployed appropriately, which could place people at risk.

Accidents and incidents were regularly reviewed, assessed and investigated by the registered manager. The home was clean and tidy

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 12 June 2018

The service was not consistently effective.

People’s physical, mental health and social needs were assessed and provided in line with current legislation and best practice guidelines, although further guidance was needed for some conditions.

People were supported by trained staff who had their performance regularly assessed. However, few staff had received an annual appraisal of their work.

People spoke positively about the food, however the lunchtime experienced was unorganised at times.

Information for people within the home about their health conditions was limited.

The environment had been adapted to support independent living although more directional signage was needed.

People were supported to make decisions however, the appropriate legal guidelines to do so had not always been followed.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 June 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives liked the staff and found them to be kind, caring and respectful. Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy.

People felt able to make decisions about their care and the staff respected those decisions.

People were encouraged to lead as independent a life as possible.

People were provided with access to an independent advocate if they needed one, although information about how to do so independently was not available.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s care records were person centred and guidance was provided for staff on how each person would like to be cared for.

Some records required older information to be removed to avoid conflicting guidance.

People felt their personal preferences and choices were respected. People were cared for without discrimination and systems were in place to support people who had communication needs.

People were encouraged to take part in group activities and activities that were important to them.

People felt able to make a complaint and were confident it would be dealt with appropriately.

End of life care was not currently provided, however, systems were in place to support people with this if they needed it.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 12 June 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

The quality assurance processes that were in place to continually assess the quality of the service people received were not always effective.

Staff were not always held accountable for their actions.

The home was led by a caring registered manager who was well liked by all.

Input from the provider was limited and the performance of the registered manager was not formally assessed.

People felt able to give their views about the service. Staff felt valued and able to give their views although formal team meetings were not in place.

The registered manager was keen to develop the role and skills of the deputy manager.