Redcot Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff were aware of their responsibility to report and record any accidents or incidents which occurred within the home. Accidents and incidents were reviewed by the management team and action taken to minimise the risk of them happening again. Examples included reviewing falls to establish potential risks to individuals such as completing medicines reviews, having sensor equipment and low level beds in place and assessing nutrition and hydration needs. In addition, a regular review of accidents and incidents was completed to identify any trends or themes. The regional director had recognised more detail was required where actions were recorded on the system and had changed the process to incorporate this.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. We received positive feedback from professionals involved with the service. They confirmed improvements had been seen in the way referrals were made and felt advice provided was followed. However, as concerns raised in some areas were relatively recent, they felt time was needed to test the systems were fully embedded.

People’s needs were reassessed following hospital stays or other significant changes in people’s health. This helped to ensure any changes in need were planned for and met.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff had completed training in relation to safeguarding. They were aware of potential signs for concerns, categories of abuse and reporting procedures. One staff member told us, “We are here to make sure the residents are safe. If we witness anything that is abusive, we must make sure to tell the shift leader or if not around, tell the manager.” Records showed safeguarding concerns were shared with the local authority safeguarding team as required. Where additional information was requested this was provided in a timely way.

Systems were in place to protect people’s rights under the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS). This ensured that where restrictions to people’s freedoms were in place, DoLS applications were submitted in line with requirements. A register of DoLS authorisations was maintained which enabled the manager to monitor any conditions in place and to submit re-applications as required.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks and staff we spoke with were aware of the risks to people’s safety. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. However, some records in relation to people’s specific needs such as catheter care and the emotional support people may need during times of distress lacked detailed guidance. The regional director told us they were aware of these concerns and were in the process or reviewing information to ensure staff had the full guidance they required to manage risks. We observed that where reviews had been completed staff had the additional information they may need.

The provider had responded to issues regarding how people’s pressure care was monitored due to professionals expressing concerns regarding the late reporting of pressure damage. Additional training had been provided to staff, recording systems changed and a member of the management team attended all handovers to ensure information shared was acted upon.

Regular meetings and reviews of people’s care were completed to ensure that any known risks such as weight loss, falls and infections were monitored. People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the support they received at Redcot. One person told us, “It is very reassuring there are always staff around and they know what to do. I trust them here.”

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. Whilst fire procedures were in place, fire drills were not regularly recorded and monitored to ensure all staff had the opportunity to take part in fire drills. The maintenance manager told us they would address this as a matter of urgency to ensure all staff were covered. This had been identified by the provider as part of their quality assurances processes and was recorded on their action plan. In other areas we found fire processes were in place. Personal emergency evacuation plans were completed, fire equipment regularly serviced and weekly checks of fire systems recorded.

Checks and regular servicing of equipment and utilities such as hoists, lifts and water and electrical equipment were completed to support the delivery of safe care.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People and their relatives told us that on the whole there were sufficient staff deployed to meet their needs safely and to spend time with them. One person told us, “I think there are enough staff, maybe they're stretched a bit sometimes”. One relative said, “Yes (there are enough staff), but my [family member] loves to chat, so probably holds them up no end.” We observed people’s call bell were answered within a reasonable time and did not see people waiting for their care.

Staff received an induction into the service and completed training on-line and in person. Staff told us they found the training useful in their role. One staff member told us, “The training helps us and if we need anything extra we can speak with the managers. We also remind each other of the training so we can work together well.”

Staff were recruited safely although we identified one instance where a staff member’s reference was provided from a manager working in the service. The regional director confirmed this was not company practice and assured us this would be addressed. With this exception, we found safe systems were in place and the provider’s recruitment policy was followed. This included obtaining reference checks, evidence of the right to work in the UK and completing a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff received training in infection prevention and control. Personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons were available and used by staff. The home was cleaned to a good standard with housekeeping staff following cleaning schedules. The laundry area was organised to minimise the risk of cross infection.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. However, we found that creams, eye drops and liquid medicines were not always dated when opened which meant there was a risk they would be used beyond the date it was safe to do so. The provider immediately put in a monitoring system to minimise the risk of this happening again.

People received their medicines in line with their prescriptions. People told us they were supported well with their medicines and were supported to be as independent as possible. One person told us, “They always seem to be on time and do it well.” Another person told us they continued to take their medicines independently although staff would support them as required.

Systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely. Medicine administration records (MAR) were completed following each administration and stock levels were monitored to ensure people always had access to their medicines. Administration guidance was in place where people were prescribed medicines to be taken as and when required. Staff received training in medicines administration, and their competence was regularly assessed.