You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 25 October 2019

About the service

Russell house is run by the Epilepsy Society. It is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 20 people. At the time of the inspection 20 people were living there.

Russell house accommodates twenty people in four units, each housing five people. Each unit have their own communal facilities such as kitchens, sitting areas and a bathroom. The registered manager’s office and administration office is located on the ground floor by the entrance to the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 20 people. Twenty people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design of four smaller units.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Relatives were happy with the care provided. They had trusting relationships with staff and recognised the improvements and challenges within the service.

Systems were in place to keep people safe. Risks to them were identified and managed. People were supported with their medicines and measures were in place to prevent cross infection. Staff were suitably recruited, and the required staffing levels were maintained. However, there was a lack of consistency in care due to the use of bank and agency staff which the provider was attempting to address through the recruitment of new staff.

People were supported by staff who were suitably inducted, trained and supported. Their health and nutritional needs were met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Relatives confirmed staff were kind and caring. We observed positive engagements between staff and the people they supported. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted.

Person centred care was promoted. People’s care, support and communication needs were identified and met. They had access to activities. For some people end of life preferences were identified, for others family were consulted with on their wishes. Systems were in place to deal with concerns and complaints.

People were supported by a service that was well managed. Improvements had been made to records management and regular auditing was taking place to promptly address any identified issues. Relatives and staff were positive about the improvements the registered manager had brought to the service. They described the registered manager as “accessible, approachable, personable, generous with their time, open, transparent, good listener, supportive, understanding, flexible and efficient”. Staff told us “they felt valued, empowered, motivated and committed to the values of the service”.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published September 2018). We imposed a condition on the provider's registration of this service for them to carry out monthly audits and send monthly reports to us about the outcomes of these. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in brea

Inspection areas



Updated 25 October 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 25 October 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 25 October 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 25 October 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 25 October 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below