You are here

The RedHouse Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at The RedHouse Care Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2018

This inspection took place on 20 and 25 June 2018 and was unannounced.

The RedHouse is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home was providing personal care and accommodation for up to 36 people. The service cared for older people living with dementia, mental health needs or physical disability. The home consisted of three floors accessed by stairs or a lift. During the inspection there were 31 people living in the home

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of The RedHouse in August 2017 where a rating of Requires Improvement was awarded. This was because the management of medicines was not safe. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made to the management of medicines. However, we found concerns around poor recruitment practice, accurate records had not been maintained, staff training was not sufficient and the provider failed to operate a robust quality assurance framework. The service remains as Requires Improvement.

At the time of the inspection there was 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. During the inspection the registered manager was not available. The provider had put measures in place to ensure the continued running of the service and an interim manager was in post. Throughout the report, we refer to this person as the manager. The manager had been working in that capacity for two weeks before the inspection.

We found that records related to various parts of the service needed improvement, including; recruitment records, staff training records, health and safety records, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) records, topical medical administration records and food and fluid charts.

Monitoring of the service by the registered manager had failed to identify concerns found during this inspection. The provider had not undertaken any additional audits or other processes to identify these concerns. The service had not sought any feedback from people or relatives for the purposes of continually evaluating and improving the service since August 2017.

The provider was unable to demonstrate they applied consistent safe practice when recruiting staff. One recruitment record did not have evidence that a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check had been completed and one record had an unexplained gap of six years in employment history.

The training matrix was not up to date and showed significant gaps in important training for example, manual handling, first aid, Diabetes, falls training, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff told us they worked within guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) around medicines administration but were unable to tell us about any other current guidelines and best practice they were following. We have made a recommendation about best practice guidelines.

Staff told us that there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and we found this to be the case. However, there did not appear to be enough staff available to ensure that people could participate in meaningful activities when the activities coordinator was not available. We have made a recommendation about the provision of meaningful activities.

The MCA provides a legal framework for making specific decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. We found that the service was working within the principles of the MCA,

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2018

The service was not always safe.

Recruitment checks were not consistently carried out to ensure that staff were safe to work with adults at risk.

Staff knew how to raise concerns about the health and wellbeing of people.

Medicines were safely administered.


Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2018

The service was not always effective.

Staff had not received sufficient training in manual handling, first aid, Diabetes, falls training, MCA and DoLS.

Care records regarding people’s nutritional intake required improvement.

People were referred to other professionals as appropriate.



Updated 20 September 2018

The service was caring.

There was a pleasant atmosphere in the home.

Staff knew people well and supported them in a caring and compassionate way.

Staff upheld people’s rights and treated people with kindness and compassion.


Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2018

The service was not always responsive.

Staff did not always have time to provide social and emotional support to people and activities were not person-centred.

Care records included information about people’s preferences, choices and needs.

Complaints had been investigated and responded to in a timely way.


Requires improvement

Updated 20 September 2018

The service was not always well-led.

Records were not always accurate.

The provider was not operating effective systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

The provider was not seeking feedback from people or their relatives about the service.

The manager was working hard to make improvements and was putting systems and processes in place to monitor and improve the service.