The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Redclyffe

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

21 Salisbury Avenue, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 2QF (01582) 620000

Provided and run by:
Scope

All Inspections

30 October 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 30 October 2014 and was unannounced. The service was found to be meeting the required standards at their last inspection in August 2014.

Redclyffe is a residential care home that provides care and support for up to 20 adults with physical or learning disabilities. There is a registered manager at this service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The CQC is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of our inspection, there were no restrictions in place for people who used the service.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and responded to their needs promptly and appropriately. Their independence and dignity was promoted by staff who had access to relevant and additional training to help then do their jobs effectively. People were supported to access and be part of the local community.

The home had staff ‘champions’ for infection control and continence care, a designated safeguarding advisor, a health and safety co-ordinator and a manual handling trainer. This meant that staff were supported to continually improve their skills. There were designated key workers with responsibility for working with individuals to ensure that all aspects of the care and support provided met their needs.

We found that there were resident forums and staff meetings for people to express their views and these were listened to and acted on. The service had complaints and whistle blowing procedures in place. Staff were aware of these, knew how to use them and were confident about raising concerns if the need arose.

The home was well led by a management team that was supportive and promoted a positive and open culture. Staff felt supported and people who used the service and their relatives were able to access the management team to share their experiences and raise concerns.

The home is due to close in 2017 and people who used the service were not happy with this as they would prefer the home to remain open. The provider will use an advocacy service from December 2014 to help and support people make decisions about their future.

15 August 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with five people who used the service, four staff, three relatives and the manager. When we visited there were 18 people who lived at Redclyffe. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they cared for. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints and whistleblowing investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The service had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are put into place to ensure that people's human rights are protected should their liberty be restricted in any way. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.

Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Environmental audits were carried out regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

The provider had safe and effective staffing rotas. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe working practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them. Specialist dietary, personal care and psychological needs had been identified in care plans where required. People told us that they had been involved in writing their care plan and that these reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People we spoke with told us, 'The staff are very good here and are awesome, what more can I say?"

People who used the service completed a yearly satisfaction survey. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to raise a concern or complain if they were unhappy.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a joined up way.

People completed a range of activities in and outside of the service regularly.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. We were therefore assured that the provider had taken steps to continually improve the service.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the ethos of the service.

6 November 2013

During a routine inspection

The people who live at Redclyffe who spoke with us told us that they were very unhappy as they explained that the home was closing and that they were very worried about where they were going to live in the future. We saw that they were visibly upset and worried. They said that the staff were wonderful and that they were particularly happy with the manager who made sure the home was well run and any problems that could be dealt with were sorted out. We were told by the manager that there was a proposal to close Redclyffe but that this was subject to consultation with the people who lived there. This consultation is due to take place in late 2016. In the meantime we were told that support systems were in place for the people who lived there.

We found that the people were well cared for and had an active life outside the home. We found the premises to be neglected and in some areas in need of repair. Some bedrooms had been refurbished and re-decorated and these were personalised to reflect the person's taste. Other rooms were not in a good state and were in need of repair or re-decoration.

On our first visit on the 06 November 2013, we found that the home was in need of a deep clean. During this visit we found that that this issue had been addressed. The manager told us that a new post of full time cleaner had been created and hoped to appoint someone in the weeks following our visit.

16 January 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited Redclyffe on 16 January 2013, we found that most people were very satisfied with the care and support they received. They told us they felt safe and well cared for, and the staff were friendly and supportive. One person said, "I'm very happy here, the staff are very nice and I feel safe."

There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home, and we observed that people were offered support at a level which encouraged independence and assured their individual needs were met. The staff were friendly and courteous in their approach to people and interacted confidently with them.

We noted that people were encouraged to express their views and were involved in planning their care, making decisions about their support, and how they spent their time. Within the care files we saw people had signed their care plans to confirm their involvement and agreement.

Records showed that thorough recruitment processes were followed to ensure that staff were suitable to work in this home, and the staff told us they felt well supported. We could see from records that staff development and conduct was monitored by the registered manager through a supervision and appraisal process.

The provider had clear quality monitoring systems in place however they were not always being used effectively to manage risks and drive improvements in this home.