You are here

Archived: Redcotts Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 18 March 2016

We carried out an inspection of Redcotts care home on 15 and 16 February 2016. The inspection was unannounced. At the previous inspection of 23 May 2014 the home had met all the standards.

Redcotts is a home for up to 18 older people, including people who have dementia. At the time of inspection there were 12 people living at the home. The home has a registered manager. 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 who lived at the home were protected from the risk of abuse happening to them. People told us they felt safe and well cared for at the service and they would not be afraid to speak with someone if they had any concerns about their safety or wellbeing. Risk management plans clearly identified what the risk was and provided staff with instructions about how they needed to manage the risk to ensure people received safe care and support whilst enabling them to remain as independent as possible.

There were enough staff on duty to care for people, with a minimum of two care staff per shift during the day and two waking staff at night. Staff had been trained to use specialised equipment, such as hoists, safely.

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. Staff were able to demonstrate good knowledge of people’s needs when they spoke about them and provided care in a safe and caring manner. Staff told us that the aim of the home was to treat people with respect and to care for them as they would a relative of their own. This philosophy was also reflected in the home’s policies and procedures and formed the basis for staff training.

The provider ensured that people’s independence and choice was promoted. People told us that they had been involved in making decisions and there was good communication between staff and themselves. They also confirmed that their consent was asked for before doing anything, such as going somewhere, or receiving medicines.

We saw that people’s health, nutrition, fluids and weight were regularly monitored. There were well established links with GP services offering a single point of access for people.

People told us that the staff were kind and caring towards them. Care records were individual to each person and contained information about people’s life history, their likes and dislikes, cultural and religious preferences. Care records included details such as personal achievements, places visited and family relationships.

We listened to how staff spoke with people and found this was professional, relaxed, and included friendly chit-chat between staff and people who used the service. We saw how people who used the service responded positively to the interaction.

People were able to get up and go to bed at a time that they preferred and were able to enjoy activities and interests that suited them. The home also supported people to maintain relationships with family, relatives and friends.

In order to listen to and learn from people’s experiences the home had an open door policy for relatives and friends as well as occasional meetings where relatives could attend and discuss issues affecting the home and the care provided to people.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to staff supervision and appraisal as well as in relation to systems for quality assuring the care provided at the home.

We saw that staff received supervision but this was intermittent and not regular enough to be effective for staff professional development, with some staff sometimes going several months before a supervision meeting. Annual appraisals, where overall individual performance could

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 March 2016

The service was safe.

People who lived at the home were protected from the risk of abuse happening to them. Appropriate risk assessments were carried out to ensure safety.

People told us they felt safe and well cared for at the service and they would not be afraid to tell someone if they had any concerns about their safety or wellbeing. There were sufficient staff on duty to ensure people were cared for safely.

There were clear policies and procedures in place relating to safeguarding and whistleblowing. Medicines were safely administered and securely stored in a locked medication cupboard.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 18 March 2016

The service was not always effective.

People received support to enable them to remain as independent as possible.

Staff had been trained to use specialised equipment, such as hoists, safely. Staff understood the relevant requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Staff did not always receive regular supervision or appraisal to enable them to discuss their role, performance or training needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 March 2016

The service was caring.

Staff engaged with people in a personal and caring manner and responded to their needs in a friendly way.

People were involved in decisions about the running of the home as well as their own care.

Care staff respected people’s dignity and showed due regard for their needs in respect of their age, disability, gender, race, religion and beliefs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 March 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s requests for assistance throughout the day were responded to promptly and people told us they never had to wait too long for assistance.

Care records were individual to each person and contained information about people’s life history, their likes and dislikes, cultural and religious preferences.

Staff ensured that people were able to enjoy their preferred activities and supported them in these, where required.

The home had a complaints procedure that was understood by people. People told us felt confident that any problems or complaints that might arise would be dealt with by the management in a satisfactory way.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 18 March 2016

The service was not always well-led.

The provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

People were very positive about the culture and atmosphere in the home. There were opportunities for people to speak to staff and the manager and there were regular meetings between the manager and the provider.