You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 December 2018

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of Red Gables on 3 December 2018. Red Gables is a ‘care home’ that provides care for a maximum of 32 older people. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The accommodation at Red Gables is set out over two floors, access to the upper floor is via stairs or a passenger lift. Some rooms have en-suite facilities. There are shared bathrooms, shower facilities and toilets. People also have access to two lounges, a dining room and a conservatory. On the day of the inspection 25 people were living at Red Gables.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Everyone told us they felt safe living at Red Gables. Risk assessments were completed to identify the level of risk people were at in a range of areas including falls and mobility. Staff knew people well and described to us how they would support people in various situations in order to keep them safe.

We identified some issues with the safety of the environment and have made a recommendation about this in the report. Safety checks relating to fire prevention systems, utilities and the use of equipment were regularly carried out. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans had been developed for each individual.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and were well supported by the registered manager. They knew people well and treated people as individuals recognising their differences and supporting them according to their preferences. The atmosphere was pleasant and relaxed. Staff and people frequently laughed and chatted together and we observed staff supporting people gently and with patience.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. We identified some shortcomings in how medicines were administered which increased the risk of errors. We have made a recommendation about this in the report. Staff worked with external healthcare professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. Kitchen staff had a comprehensive understanding of people’s dietary requirements and preferences.

The service was in the process of moving care plans from a paper based system to a computerised system. The registered manager had a clear plan for the transition to avoid any information being overlooked. The new system was not as effective in capturing details of people’s emotional well-being and information about how they had spent their time. The registered manager told us this had already been identified and there were plans in place to deliver training to staff to improve this area of recording.

New staff underwent thorough pre-employment background checks and received a comprehensive induction programme. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff were appropriately trained and had the correct skills to carry out their roles effectively.

The registered manager and staff understood their role with regards to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and where applicable the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place. Incidents were appropriately recorded and analysed. Learning from incidents and concerns raised was used to help drive improvements and ensure positive progress was made in the delivery of care and support.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 29 December 2018

The service was not entirely safe. Systems to mitigate the risk of medicine errors being made were not robustly applied.

Some areas of the premises were not effectively monitored or maintained and presented risks to people's safety.

Risk assessments in new electronic care plans did not guide staff on the actions to take to protect people from foreseeable harm.

There were enough staff to meet people's health and social needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 December 2018

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 December 2018

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 December 2018

The service remains Good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 December 2018

The service remains Good.