You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 September 2014
Date of Publication: 22 October 2014
Inspection Report published 22 October 2014 PDF | 73.56 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 5 September 2014

During a routine inspection

This was a follow up inspection to monitor progress made since our last inspection in May 2014 when two compliance actions were set.

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? We gathered information from people who used the service by talking with them and observing care practices.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

One the day of our inspection we found the service to be safe.

People told us they felt safe. Systems were in place to help the manager and staff team learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. Quality assurance processes were not robust and need improvement. This will reduce the risks to people and help the service to continually improve. Staff showed a good understanding of the care needs of the people they supported.

Red Gables alerted the local authority and the Care Quality Commission when notifiable events occurred or they had any concerns regarding people who used the service. Red Gables had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). This helped to ensure that people’s needs were met.

Is the service effective?

One the day of our inspection we found the service to be effective.

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, although people were not involved in writing their plans of care. During our inspection it was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff, and relatives of people who used the service, that staff had a good understanding of people’s needs.

Specialist dietary needs had been identified where required. Care plans were not up-to-date as they were not regularly reviewed.

We saw that there was good liaison and communication with other professionals and agencies to ensure people’s care needs were met.

The quality of recording seen was of a satisfactory standard but required greater consistency to enable care staff to use the information correctly.

Is the service caring?

One the day of our inspection we found the service to be caring.

At our previous inspection we spoke with four people and one relative and asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example, “wonderful”, “Staff are very friendly” and “Very considerate carers”. When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.

People’s preferences and interests had been recorded and some life histories were evident.

Red Gables had regular support from the local GPs and other visiting health professionals. This ensured people received appropriate care in a timely way.

Is the service responsive?

One the day of our inspection we found the service to be responsive.

The care records showed some evidence of the lifestyle of the people who lived at Red Gables and we observed that staff spent one-to-one time with people throughout the day.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a coherent way.

Is the service well-led?

One the day of our inspection we found the service in need of improvement.

We met with the registered manager. We saw minutes of meetings held with the staff. This showed the management consulted with staff to gain their views and experiences and improve support for people who lived at the service. We noted that these meetings were not held at regular intervals.

The service had a quality assurance system which we considered needed a more comprehensive and consistent approach. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and but were not clear about the quality assurance processes. This did not help to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.