You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 February 2017

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 30 November and 12 December 2016. We last inspected in August 2014 and found the service was rated good and was meeting all the regulations that we inspected at that time.

Red Brick House provides nursing and residential care for up to 50 people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 42 people living at the service including one person who was in hospital and returned to the service on the last day of inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 told us they felt safe. Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities and told us they would report anything of concern.

Medicines were managed safely and staff had received training and additional support with the introduction of a new electronic medicines system.

Any risks had been identified and risk assessments put in place. The provider had a robust risk monitoring procedure and risks were reviewed regularly and when any issues arose. Where accidents had occurred, they were recorded and monitored by the registered manager.

The premises were clean and there were no malodours. Checks and tests had been carried out to ensure that the premises and equipment were safe such as electrical and gas safety tests and lift maintenance. The registered manager ensured that emergency plans were in place in case of emergencies like flooding or fire and every person in the service had their own personal emergency evacuation plan to aid the emergency service should the building need to be cleared.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place and staff were checked prior to starting work to ensure they were suitable for their role and safe to work with vulnerable people. Staff told us they were well supported and received suitable training to allow them to complete their work safely. The majority of staff had worked at the service for some time or had been appointed from another care home.

A full induction programme was in place and when we checked it was comprehensive, but was not linked to the Care Certificate. The Care Certificate was officially launched in April 2015. It aims to equip health and social care workers with the knowledge and skills which they need to provide safe, compassionate care. It replaces the National Minimum Training Standards and the Common Induction Standards. The provider told us they would ensure that any new staff with no experience of care would complete their induction based on the Care Certificate.

The provider had enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people living at the service and had employed bank staff to support them when shortages due to sickness or holiday occurred. We saw that staff carried out their duties in a calm unhurried manner and were available to provide emotional support to people.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have the ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’. It also ensures unlawful restrictions are not placed on people in care homes and hospitals. In England, the local authority authorises applications to deprive people of their liberty. We found the provider was complying with their legal requirements.

We saw that people enjoyed the food prepared for them and were able to confirm this when asked. There was a range of nutritious meals and refreshments were available throughout the day. We

Inspection areas



Updated 4 February 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities and knew what to do if they had any concerns. All accidents and incidents were recorded, and risks which had been identified had been assessed.

The provider had installed a new electronic medicines management procedure and people were administered medicines in a safe way.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment procedures had been followed to ensure staff had suitable qualifications and experience to carry out their role.



Updated 4 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were skilled, knowledgeable and were supported by their line manager.

The manager and staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and worked within legal guidelines.

People’s nutritional and fluid needs were met. People were supported with a healthy diet and to remain hydrated, with special diets being prepared for those that needed them.



Updated 4 February 2017

The service was caring.

People and their family members told us that they thought staff were caring and thought they were treated with kindness and respect.

We saw positive interactions between staff and the people they cared for.

Staff were motivated and committed to their work, and spoke with pride about the importance of ensuring people’s needs were held in the forefront of everything they did.



Updated 4 February 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were in place which detailed individual care and support to be provided to people.

A full activities programme was in place to help meet people's social needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place.



Updated 4 February 2017

The service was well led.

The provider had a quality assurance programme in place to ensure that all areas of the service were monitored.

People and relatives were positive about the registered manager and the staff team that currently worked at the service.

Meetings were held to feedback on the running of the service.