Redhouse

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 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.

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.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Information was used to ensure lessons were learnt so that where needed improvements could be made to the service. The provider monitored and analysed the incident and accidents that occurred in the home to see if there any were any trends they could identify. They would then use this information to see how things could be completed differently in the future.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

There were processes in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. People had lived at the home for a long time. We saw care plans and risk assessments were developed based on people’s assessed needs. Staff confirmed they were aware of people’s needs and reviewed this information to ensure they delivered care in line with this.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People appeared comfortable. One relative told us, “I have no concerns.”

There were systems in place to ensure safeguarding concerns were identified, reviewed and investigated. Staff told us they had received training and were able to tell us how to report and recognise potential abuse.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In [care homes/hospitals], this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that when needed, DoLS were in place for people.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People and relatives were happy with how their risks were managed. One relative told us, “Yes he is safe.”

People had care plans and risk assessments that were reflective of their current needs. These plans considered all the needs of people including, management of oral healthcare, their preferred routines and how they ate and drank. These were reviewed regularly or when changes had occurred.

The provider did not always detect and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

We saw the fire risk assessment was in place and reviewed annually by the registered manager. However, there was no evidence to demonstrate, in line with requirements, how the registered manager was competent to do this. The provider took immediate action to resolve this and arranged for a competent person to review the fire risk assessment. We will review this as part of our next inspection.

People looked comfortable in their environment and raised no concerns to us. One person said, “I Like it.”

The environment had been adapted and decorated to meet people’s individual needs, this included in people’s bedrooms where they had been involved with the decoration of these. There were processes in place to ensure any risks to equipment were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

The provider had systems in place to ensure there were enough staff available to support people.

People and relatives were happy with the staff who supported them. One person told us they liked the staff.

We saw there were enough staff available to support people in line with their assessed needs and staffing they had been allocated. Where people had individual hours, they used this to access the community.

Staff told us and records confirmed staff had received training. This included mandatory training and training that was specific to people’s individual needs.

Staff had received the relevant pre-employment checks before they could start working with people to ensure they were safe to do so.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

People and relatives were happy with the cleanliness of the home. One person told us, “I like hoovering.”

There was enough Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) available for staff to use when needed. There were processes in place to monitor IPC to ensure concerns were identified so that appropriate action could be taken.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People and relatives raised no concerns with how medicines were administered.

We saw medicines were stored safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff administering medicines had received training and their competency was checked to ensure they were safe to administer these to people. When people had ‘as required’ medicines there was guidance in place for staff to follow.