Archived: The Red House

There was a new manager at the home. They had been working at the home since 1 December 2017.

At our last inspection we rated the home good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the home has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the home remained Good.

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 home supported this practice.

Staff were kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and staff received ongoing training and support so that they knew how to care for people safely and kept up to date with changes in legislation and best practice. They were also supported with regular staff meetings so that they could discuss any improvements needed. The manager ensured that staff were safe to work with the people living at the home.

Risks to people had been identified and care was planned to keep people safe. Records accurately recorded the care that people needed and were kept up to date as people’s needs changed. Medicines were safely administered and people were supported to eat safely and maintain a healthy weight. People’s wishes for their end of their lives had been recorded and people were supported to have a dignified pain free death.

People were involved in planning their care and were encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves. Their likes and dislikes were recorded so that care could be tailored to their individual needs. People’s privacy and dignity were respected. Activities provided helped people to stay engaged with their lives and helped to orientate them to the time of year.

The manager was supportive and approachable. There were effective audits in place which ensured that the care provided was monitored and any concerns identified were corrected in a timely manner.

We inspected the home on 5 April 2017. The inspection was unannounced. There were 20 people living in the home on the day of our inspection.

The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers (the ‘provider’) 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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) 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. At the time of our inspection the provider had submitted 10 DoLS applications to the local authority and was waiting for these to be considered.

At our previous inspection in January 2015 we rated the home as Good. However, on our inspection of 5 April 2017, we found several areas in which improvement was required to ensure people received the safe, caring and responsive service they were entitled to expect.

Daytime staffing resources were not deployed effectively to meet people's needs and preferences. The management of some potential risks to people's safety and welfare was not consistently effective and the provision of communal activities and other events was confused and unstructured and did not consistently meet people's needs for stimulation and occupation.

Some staff used old-fashioned, institutional terminology when talking about people in their care and one person’s right to privacy was not fully respected. Staff did not always reflect the content of people's individual care plans in the support they provided.

In other areas, we found the provider was meeting people’s needs effectively.

There was a comfortable, relaxed atmosphere. Staff knew people as individuals and provided support in a friendly way. Staff understood the principles of the MCA and worked alongside local healthcare services to ensure people had access to any specialist support they required. People were provided with food and drink of good quality that met their individual needs and preferences.

Staff worked together in a supportive way and were provided with regular supervision and support by the registered manager and other senior staff. The provider organised a varied programme of training and encouraged staff to study for advanced qualifications. The registered manager provided strong leadership and had won the respect and loyalty of her team.