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

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

User experience

People told us that they felt involved in the running of the home and that they knew how to raise concerns if there were things they were not happy with. One person said, “We had a residents meeting recently I know it is a good idea to meet so we all have the chance to speak up.”

We saw the records of the last meeting held on 17 February 2012. The record included a section with comments from people about what they would like to do. Some comments had been made suggesting that people would like to go outside into the community more.

The manager showed us that this had been done and one person told us, “I am really interested in history and we have been out to the local museum and I am looking forward to going to the local history society soon.”

Other evidence

We knew that the statement of purpose and service user guide provided by the home was available in the reception area of the home and contained information about what was offered, how to make contact with the service to make any suggestions for improvement and how to raise any concerns or formal complaints.

The manager told us that there had been no complaints raised with the home during the last year but described how she would respond to any concerns raised with her using the policies and procedures in place.

The manager showed us that the home owners undertook regular monitoring visits to the home and that the manager and home owners communicated regularly about any issues that needed to be addressed.

We knew that the home owners had used discussions with the manager to create a business plan to upgrade the decoration and external maintenance issues that the manager had identified needed to be addressed. During our visit we saw that part of the home had been refurbished and people told us they thought the improvements made were good.

We also knew that the manager held regular residents, relatives and staff meetings to enable people to share ideas and to raise concerns if needed. We saw that the next residents meeting had been arranged for 2 May 2012. The meeting was advertised on the walls in the home.

The manager also showed us that they sent surveys out to people, relative’s staff and visiting professionals to ask them what they thought of the service. The surveys were produced in a way that all people could understand them using symbols to ask if people were happy or unhappy with the services provided.

We saw the returned surveys from the homes recent annual quality audit. The surveys that were completed and returned in April 2012 indicated that overall people had fed back that they were happy with the services being provided.