You are here

Archived: Redlands Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 15 April 2015

This was an unannounced inspection.

The service provides care and support for up to eight people who have a learning disability, a mental health condition or physical disabilities. Some people using the service displayed behaviours that were challenging to others and required interventions from staff to keep them and others safe.

There is a registered manager at Redlands. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

The provider monitored incidents where behaviours challenged and responded promptly by informing the local authority safeguarding team, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), behavioural support team and advocacy agencies.

Staff were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked with advocacy agencies, healthcare professionals and family members to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests and documented appropriately

People were not deprived of their liberty without authorisation from the local authority. Staff were knowledgeable about the deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) in place for people and accurately described the content detailed in people’s authorisations.

People were protected from possible harm. Staff were able to identify the different signs of abuse and were knowledgeable about the homes safeguarding processes and procedures. They consistently told us they would contact CQC and the local authority if they felt someone was at risk of abuse. Notifications sent to CQC and discussions with the local authority safeguarding team confirmed this.

Staff received training appropriate to people’s needs and were regularly monitored by a senior member of staff to ensure they delivered effective care. Where people displayed physical behaviours that challenged others, staff responded appropriately by using redirection techniques and only used physical intervention as a last resort. The provider had informed the local authority and healthcare professionals when this was applied.

Staff interacted with people and showed respect when they supported them. Relatives and healthcare professionals consistently told us staff engaged with people effectively and encouraged people to participate in activities. People’s records documented their hobbies, interests and described what they enjoyed doing in their spare time.

Staff supported people regularly to attend various health related appointments. Examples of these included visits to see the GP, hospital appointments and assessments with other organisations such as the community mental health team.

People received support that met their needs because staff regularly involved them in reviewing their care plans. Records showed reviews took place on a regular basis or when someone’s needs changed.

There was an open culture where people told us they were encouraged to discuss what was important to them. We consistently observed positive interaction between staff and people. Management audits showed senior staff frequently visited the service to check care and support was delivered to a good standard.

Inspection areas



Updated 15 April 2015

The service was safe. People were cared for by staff who knew how to keep them safe by reporting any concerns.

Potential risks to people’s health were assessed and care plans put in place to manage any identified risks.

There were arrangements to manage the risks associated with the management and administration of medicines.



Updated 15 April 2015

The service was effective. Staff were supported to develop their knowledge and skills to meet the needs of the people.

Where potential restrictions on people’s liberty had been identified, appropriate applications had been made to the local authority under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People who were at risk of choking had been appropriately assessed and supported effectively.



Updated 15 April 2015

The service was caring. Staff were caring, patient and kind.

Care staff understood people’s different communication needs and interacted effectively with people.

People were supported to make choices and their dignity and

independence respected.



Updated 15 April 2015

The service was responsive. Care plans were detailed and reflected people’s needs and choices so staff could meet people’s needs in a way they preferred. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they continued to meet people’s needs.

The registered manager and the provider were responsive to concerns raised.



Updated 15 April 2015

The service was well-led. Staff felt supported by the management team.

Staff, relatives and people were provided with regular opportunities to provide feedback.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to raise concerns. Concerns were taken seriously and fully investigated.