You are here

Archived: Redcote Residential Home

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 April 2012
Date of Publication: 1 May 2012
Inspection Report published 1 May 2012 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard.

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

User experience

People told us that they had received the care and support they needed and wanted when they came into the home.

We talked to people about the information they had received when they moved into the home. People told us they received an assessment in advance of moving in.

We saw that people had been supported to personalise their rooms and bring their own furniture and personal items into the home. We spoke to one person in their room who said, “I chose the colours for the walls in my room and they (staff) helped me set things out how I wanted.”

We saw that the manager and staff team worked in a way that respected and supported people's lifestyle choices.

For example, we observed staff members talking to people in a way which showed they knew them, calling them by their first names and presenting them with choices about food and individual activities based on the information we saw in people’s care plans.

We saw that the manager had produced a statement of purpose which included information about local advocacy services for people. The manager told us that she would support people to access the service if needed.

We also saw that the manager had produced a service user guide which included details of what people should expect to receive and how they could raise any concerns with the manager. The guide was accessible to people in home. One person told us, “I like to know how things work and everything I need is in the guides available here.”

Other evidence

We observed that the environment was calm, and welcoming. Staff were attentive to people’s individual needs whilst at the same time aware of the comfort and safety of other people.

Throughout our visit we observed that staff spoke with people in a dignified and respectful manner. We found that people had an opportunity to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their day to day care and support.

We knew that the home owner had employed an external independent inspector who had visited the home in December 2011 and March 2012. Reports were produced, which provided information to the manager and home owner relating to the quality of care.

We were sent copies of the reports. The outcomes indicated that the care systems in place were meeting people's needs in the way they wished them to be. The manager showed us that she had used some of the feedback from the last review completed on 4 April 2012 review to improve access to communication for people.

For example, the manager showed us she was in the process of setting up computer systems within the home so that people could communicate with family members more easily, particularly for those people whose family lived abroad.