The RedHouse Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At this inspection, we assessed environmental safety and safe care and treatment. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

In line with our current assessment framework, we have considered the evidence from this inspection alongside that of the previous inspection. Based on this combined view, the overall rating for the safe key question remains good. Some shortfalls were identified in relation to environmental risks. The provider took immediate action to address the concerns.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Comprehensive pre-admission assessments were carried out before people moved into the service. These assessments included detailed information about individuals' needs, preferences, and risks. We saw clear evidence of joint working with health and social care partners, and people and their families gave consistently positive feedback about how transitions into the home had been managed. One relative said, “Red House came out and assessed her, then we went and showed her room, and she felt very comfortable.” Another relative told us, “He has only been there a month, and he is shining—he’s really sociable and loving it.”

Staff were organised in supporting people’s daily routines and planned ahead for activities. For example, staff prepared medication in advance to ensure people could attend outings safely, promoting both independence and wellbeing. People experienced safe, well-managed transitions due to timely assessments, effective communication, and collaborative planning. These systems reduced risks and supported people to settle into the service with confidence.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

There were shortfalls in the provider’s systems to identify and consistently manage environmental risks. Some equipment, facilities, and technology did not consistently support safe care. The environment was not fully adapted to meet the needs of people living with dementia, who may be at greater risk of harm due to cognitive impairment and reduced mobility.

At the time of inspection, three staircases were fitted with stairgates that did not meet current safety standards. Some were damaged or left open, increasing the risk of falls. Access doors were linked to a single tone call bell system that did not provide continuous alerts. This meant staff were not reliably notified when people accessed stairwells unsupervised, creating a risk of harm. Further shortfalls included unsecured wardrobes posing a tip hazard to people, an unprotected radiator, missing emergency pull cords in one bedroom and one bathroom, and windows in some areas that were not securely restricted. Several fire doors showed signs of damage or were missing key components such as locks or handles. Signage to inform people of CCTV in operation was limited, with only one notice displayed at the main entrance.

These issues presented avoidable environmental risks that had not been identified or mitigated through effective oversight. Staff were limited in their ability to detect and respond to risks due to gaps in environmental monitoring systems. While we found no evidence that anyone had come to harm as a result, the physical environment did not consistently support the safety of people with complex needs. Despite these concerns, people and relatives told us they felt safe and well cared for. One person said, “I am quite happy here and I am not scared.” A relative told us, “They have always been good with hoists and the special beds, no problems. The carers are good.”

The provider responded promptly when these issues were raised. Stairgates were removed, wardrobes were secured to walls, and radiator covers were installed. Missing locks were replaced, and CCTV signage was improved. A full fire door inspection was commissioned, and the provider began sourcing a new call bell system to improve stairwell safety. Although responsive action was taken following our visit, environmental risks had not been effectively managed prior to the inspection.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.