Archived: The Red House

The Red House is a care home without nursing for up to seven people with learning disabilities. People who use the service may have additional needs and present behaviours which can be perceived as challenging. It is a detached property in a residential area with local amenities nearby. There were six people using the service at the time of the inspection.

There was a new manager working in The Red House. They told us they had been working for the company for the last four months. An application has been received in respect of the new manager being registered with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’

People had access to other health professionals. However, the records of these appointments did not capture the outcome or any follow up. This meant people could not be assured their health needs were being met and the advice of health care professionals followed.

There were suitable arrangements in place for the safe storage, receipt and administration of people’s medicines.

People and their families were provided with opportunities to express their needs, wishes and preferences regarding how they lived their daily lives. This included meetings with staff members and other health and social care professionals.

People were supported to access and attend a range of activities. People were supported by the staff to use the local community facilities and had been supported to develop skills which promoted their independence.

People’s needs were regularly assessed and care plans provided guidance to staff on how people were to be supported. The planning of people’s care, treatment and support was personalised to reflect people’s preferences and personalities.

The staff at the home had a clear knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLs). These safeguards aim to protect people from being inappropriately deprived of their liberty. These safeguards can only be used when a person lacks the mental capacity to make certain decisions and there is no other way of supporting the person safely.

Where people lacked capacity, best interests meetings had taken place involving other professionals ensuring decisions were made in peoples’ best interests.

The staff recruitment process was robust to ensure the staff employed would have the skills to support people. Staff were knowledgeable about people. They had received suitable training to support people safely enabling them to respond to their care and support needs.

The service maintained daily records of how peoples support needs were met. Staff respected people’s privacy and we saw staff working with people in a kind and compassionate way responding to their needs.

There was a complaints procedure for people, families and friends to use and compliments could also be recorded. We saw that the service took time to work with and understand people’s individual way of communicating so that the service staff could respond appropriately to the person.

The provider had quality monitoring systems in place which were used to bring about improvements to the service.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

There were six people living at the home at the time of our visit.

We saw that people receive effective care, based on detailed care records that met each person’s needs. We also saw that people’s care and treatment was planned and delivered in a respectful and safe way.

We saw well-organised person centred care records that provided clear direction for staff. These plans had been developed with each individual, and documented their wishes and preferences. Family members were involved where the person was unable to fully contribute themselves.

During our visit we saw that people in the service were spoken to in a respectful way. We saw staff were polite, friendly and helpful and that people’s privacy was respected at all times.

We saw that staff interacted well with people when they were supporting them. We saw staff were maintained people's dignity, privacy and independence. For example, staff knocked on people's door before entering, and they checked on how people wanted to be supported.

We saw that activities were suited to individual needs. One person told us: “I go out when I want to.” Another person was supported to describe to us a recent day out.

We spoke to staff and reviewed records that showed us that people in the service were protected from abuse.

We saw positive interactions between staff and people using the service. People were supported to be as independent as possible and behaviour displayed when people became anxious was effectively managed. We could see that people felt comfortable with staff. The environment in the home was pleasant and well planned. This enabled effective cleaning and also ensured that people could move around safely and easily.

A range of activities was open to people, including access to college or a drive in the local area. There were planned activities and these varied depending on how well people felt. People were encouraged to take part in general tasks around the home such as cooking and washing.

Staff reported that changes in the management of staff had resulted in a strong team that worked well together to support people using the service. They felt trained and supported. Improved quality assessment was in place and working well.