You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Red Rose Care on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Red Rose Care, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 11 November 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This report was created as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC’s regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the provider.

About the service

Red Rose Care is a domiciliary care agency based in Bamber Bridge on the outskirts of Preston. The agency provides personal care to a wide range of adults in their own homes, including older people, people living with dementia, people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder or a physical disability. At the time of our inspection the service supported 39 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were safe using Red Rose Care. Systems, processes and practices adopted by the service protected people from harm and safeguarded them from the risk of abuse and discrimination. Potential risks were thoroughly assessed, and medicines were managed safely. One person told us, “I feel safe with the girls [carers] as I hardly have any family. They make me feel safe. I feel as if the carers are in my bubble.”

Particular attention had been given to infection control practices during the pandemic in order to keep those who used the service and the staff team safe. Systems were in place so that lessons were learned when things went wrong.

Robust recruitment practices were in place. The staff team was consistent, and the support provided to people promoted continuity of care. A wide range of training had been provided for the staff team around health and safety matters and safeguarding issues, which helped to ensure people received safe care and treatment.

The management and staff team were open and transparent during the inspection process. A wide range of regular audits and monitoring was taking place. We received very positive feedback about the registered manager and the staff team. Community health and social care professionals had been involved in the care and support of those who used the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 06 July 2019).

Why we inspected

This was a planned pilot virtual inspection. The pilot inspection considered the key questions of safe and well-led and provided a rating for those key questions. The ratings for the key questions effective, caring and responsive are those awarded at the last inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Routes Healthcare on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Inspection carried out on 7 June 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Red Rose Care provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. Not everyone using received a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 40 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they received safe care and treatment. They spoke positively about the care staff and the support the service provided. The registered manager had procedures for protecting people against risks of harm and for reporting safeguarding concerns. The care delivered was safe, reliable and person-centred.

The registered manager had assessed people’s needs and provided staff with guidance on how these needs were to be met. On the whole people were supported with the safe use of medicines. Staff had received training in safe medicines management and had access to national guidance and best practice. However, we noted some improvements were required to the medicines management practices to ensure effective and safe administration of covert medicines. We made a recommendation about safe management of medicines.

Staff showed a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities for keeping people safe from harm. Individual and environmental risks had been assessed to minimise the risk of harm to people and staff during care visits. There was a lone working policy and after-hours support to assist staff when working on their own and after hours.

People received support to maintain good nutrition and hydration and their healthcare needs were understood and met.

Staff supported people to have maximum choice and control of their lives, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. They sought consent before delivering care.

People told us staff visited as planned and they were punctual. There had been previous concerns regarding missed visits however these had been resolved. The registered manager had processes for monitoring visits and had started rolling out a new computer based visit monitoring system to enable the provider to monitor whether staff were visiting as planned.

Staff had continued to receive a range of training and support to enable them to carry out their role safely. The registered manager continued to provide one to one supervision including unannounced spot checks on staff while in the community.

People and family members knew how to make a complaint and they were confident about complaining should they need to. They were confident that their complaint would be listened to and acted upon quickly. Previous complaints had been adequately investigated and outcomes had been shared and used to improve care delivery.

The registered provider continued to maintain robust governance systems to support the delivery of safe care. The leadership of the service promoted a positive culture within the staff team. The registered manager showed they were committed to improving the service and displayed knowledge and understanding around the importance of working closely with other agencies and healthcare professionals where needed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 2 November 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 2 November 2016, with follow up telephone calls being made to people who used the service, their relatives and staff on 3 and 4 November 2016. The inspection was announced. The service had been registered with the Care Quality Commission since August 2013 and had previously been inspected during May 2014, when the service was found to be compliant in all areas inspected.

Clarriots Care (Lancashire South) provides domiciliary care services to approximately 30 people in their own homes. The people who receive these services have a wide range of needs.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

People told us they felt safe and staff had received safeguarding training in order to keep people safe. There were robust recruitment practices in place, which meant staff had been recruited safely. Risks to people and staff had been assessed and reduced where possible.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and logged. Staff were aware of actions to take in an emergency and they took appropriate action in the event of any accidents or incidents.

People received effective care and support to meet their needs. People and their relatives felt staff had the necessary skills and training to provide effective care and support. Staff told us they felt supported and we saw staff had received thorough induction training as well as ongoing training, supervision and appraisal.

Care and support was provided in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw from the care files we reviewed, consent had been sought and obtained from people, prior to their care and support being provided. Where a decision had been made in a person’s best interests, appropriate steps had been followed and necessary assessments had been completed.

People we spoke with told us staff were caring. The staff we spoke with were enthusiastic and were driven to provide good quality care. Staff told us how they respected people’s privacy and dignity and the people we spoke with confirmed this. People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

Care and support plans were detailed and personalised, taking into account people’s choices and preferences. People, and their relatives where appropriate, had been involved in their care planning and people told us they could make their own choices. Appropriate referrals for additional support for people were made when necessary.

People told us the service was responsive and flexible to their needs.

People and the staff we asked told us they felt the service was well led. Although there was a lack of evidence of some audits, quality assurance checks regularly took place, and feedback was given to staff in order to improve the service. Staff told us they felt supported and people felt able to contact the office in the knowledge they would be listened to.

The registered manager was open and receptive to feedback given at the inspection.

Inspection carried out on 14 April 2014

During a routine inspection

This was a newly registered agency that provided support to a small number of service users. Most people had only been in receipt of support for a few weeks or months. People had individual private contracts in place.

The inspection was undertaken by the lead inspector for the service. We set out to answer five important questions. Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and the staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff training, written guidance and appropriate working practices helped to keep people safe and protected against any potential abuse. People using the service and the relatives we spoke with expressed confidence in the staff team. Comments included; �I am quite happy to leave my wife in their care.�

Effective recruitment procedures were in place. Robust checks helped to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. Staff understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Is the service effective?

The individual or their representative such as a relative was involved in the assessment and support planning processes. Support plans reflected people�s individual wishes and preferences.

Staff we spoke with told us support plans contained enough appropriate information about the needs of each person.

The service users, relatives and staff we spoke with confirmed that continuity of staff was given a high priority. People were supported by the same staff or same small team of staff. This helped to promote consistency of care.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were supported by kind and attentive staff. Comments included; �They are always polite� �I am very pleased with the quality of the service.� And �The staff are most courteous.�

Relatives also told us they were satisfied with the quality of care provided.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt able to raise any issues or make suggestions.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that some people had their support visits increased to meet their changing needs. Individuals had requested an increase in service provision and this had been accommodated.

One person explained that they had requested a change of carer and this had been swiftly addressed.

Is the service well-led?

The manager worked directly with each person using the service and had an excellent understanding of their individual needs.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were supported to work to a high standard. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they knew how to contact the manager at the office if they had any queries or concerns.