- Care home
Redclyffe Residential Care Home
Assessment report published 8 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
This inspection took place between 20th July and 4th August 2026. It was carried out by an Inspector, and an expert by experience. Redclyffe Care Home is a care home for older people some of whom are living with dementia.
This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard.
We visited the home twice. Both times were unannounced.
We reviewed a range of peoples care records, risk assessments, and reviews. We looked at staff records, and a range of policies including those related to medicines, and safeguarding. We spoke to people living there, staff, the registered manager, and relatives of people who lived at the home. We obtained opinions from external stakeholders e.g. Local authorities for their opinion of the home.
At the time of our inspection 26 people were living in Redclyffe care home, supported by a rota of 20 staff members,
Staff protected people's privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way.
People, where possible, were involved in assessments of their needs with relatives also being involved from the beginning. Staff reviewed assessments with them, taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. People had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living.
Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent if they were able to do so. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA, but paperwork did not always support this. This was rectified during our inspection by the registered manager, and we are not aware of any harm which had occurred because of this. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions.
Relatives knew how to give feedback and were confident the provider took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. Staff worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback.
Most people had their own bedrooms and bathrooms, and they were able to personalise these if they chose to. There were large reception rooms downstairs and people were encouraged to use these and join in with an extensive activities program.
Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
People's experience of this service
Relatives and external stakeholders were positive about the quality of care. People felt their relatives were safe, and we observed people acting relaxed and calm with the staff. One relative told us, “The staff are always approachable and have the time to discuss anything which I feel needs to happen.”
People were respected and valued as individuals. Staff demonstrated and could tell us about the different ways in which people lived and their different needs and likes. One relative told us “It is very family like. All the staff seem to know all the residents.” We observed that staff knew somebody's history and were talking to them about things they knew. We also saw in care records where the home had advocated on somebody's behalf, so they received the health support which they needed. Relatives told us they had no concerns of medical professionals e.g. GP’s being called if needed, and that they were always informed in a timely way.
People living in the home told us they were happy there and they liked the people who looked after them.
Care and support were delivered in a safe, clean, well-equipped and well-maintained environment. One relative told us their family member is “Happy and settled now and calls it a little hotel.' The property is within a residential area and provides ample indoor and outdoor space which is used for activities and events. One person had a birthday party in the dining room and garden which their relatives and friends organised.
Relatives and people living at the home were complimentary of the range of activities which were available and how the organisers did their best to arrange activities which would suit everybody. Some relatives told us they did not think there was as much for their family members to do at weekends. People's religious beliefs were considered. One person told us they have a communion in the home once a month which people can attend.
People were protected from abuse and poor care. The service had sufficient, appropriately skilled staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Staff feedback evidenced they understood people as individuals.
People received kind and compassionate care from staff who protected and respected their privacy and dignity. A relative told us they “never heard any of the staff talk in an unfriendly manner to (family member) or any of the other residents there”, and “they respect (family members) dignity and privacy. They will always knock on the door before coming in.'
People’s risks were assessed regularly and managed safely. People were supported to take risks in a positive and supportive way. One person had a fall and since then had been reluctant to mobilise. Staff were observed to be encouraging to try and maintain their mobility, whilst understanding the risks
People’s care, treatment and support plans, reflected their holistic needs including their sensory, cognitive and functioning needs.
Staff used clinical and quality audits to evaluate the quality of care and maintain people's health. One relative told us, “They do regular weight checks to ensure (family member) is not losing weight, and also regular urine checks.”
People and those important to them were actively involved in planning their care. We saw care records were reviewed, and relatives had been involved in these.
We saw some people in their rooms, the communal lounges and the dining room. Staff were available to offer support if needed and we observed people feeling able to contact staff if they needed something. We also observed staff acting proactively to support people, evidencing they knew them well. They recognised when a person needed to access the toilet. They supported them and the person was given privacy and dignity in a safe way.
Staff understood that some people needed help with special diets and sometimes help with eating. Systems were in place to make sure these people were supported without being rushed.
People’s relatives told us they thought there was enough staff in the care home, and they had been well trained. A relative told us “There was one occasion when another resident was not sure where she was going, and one of the carers was quickly aware of this and guided her into a chair. They obviously knew her well”.