CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Red House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risk assessments were reviewed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff with the right skills and experience.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were reviewed regularly. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with eating, exercise and healthcare, and consent and best-interest decisions were handled in line with the law.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff developed positive relationships with people and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence. People were involved in decisions about their care and the running of the home.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and reviewed monthly with each person's chosen keyworker. People were supported with communication, relationships, interests, activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team monitored quality and safety through walkarounds, audits and action plans. Inspectors found an open culture and evidence of working with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Red House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a minor recruitment process improvement noted.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector on 15 and 19 August 2019. The inspector spoke with three people using the home and five staff. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records, and sought feedback from professionals and the local authority.
The home supported five adults with learning disabilities, autism and/or mental health needs. Inspectors found that people felt safe, were treated with dignity and received support suited to their wishes. Staff supported people to make choices, become more independent, attend college or work, enjoy activities and keep relationships in their community.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found good standards across the areas checked. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, which was also Good.
Safety and risk support
People felt safe and staff understood how to protect them. Individual risk assessments and support plans helped people have freedom while managing risks.
“People felt safe and staff treated them with respect and dignity.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to gain skills, make choices and become more independent. This included cooking, household tasks, using public transport, work and college.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Community life
People were supported to follow their interests, visit local places and maintain important relationships. Inspectors found that people were known and included in their local community.
“People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. They used people's preferred ways of communicating and supported their privacy, dignity and emotional wellbeing.
“The service was caring and person-centred. People using the service and the staff supporting them, were valued and listened to.” from the report
Management oversight
The provider and registered manager used regular checks, audits and feedback to monitor the home. They worked openly with outside agencies and shared learning.
“The provider's governance systems monitored the quality and safety of the service to identify where improvements were needed.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorInspectors discussed making recruitment more robust. In particular, the home could improve its records of follow-up calls when a written reference did not provide enough information.
“We discussed ways in which the recruitment process could be made more robust with the registered manager.” from the report
- 01How do you check that references provide enough information before a new staff member starts?
- 02How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, including the use of easy-read information?
- 03How would you help my relative build independence and take part in activities, education, work or community life?
- 04How are changes in my relative's health needs shared between staff and with health professionals?
- 05How would my relative be involved in reviewing their support and raising a complaint or concern?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 October 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and training arrangements still being improved.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 January 2017. One inspector spoke with four people living at the home, three care staff and managers. They reviewed two care records, medicines records, audits, meeting minutes and other records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices and become more independent. Staff knew people's needs and supported them with health care, activities and links with the local community.
Inspectors found strong leadership and significant improvements in the home. These included better support for people's needs, improvements to the environment and much less use of some medicines used when people were anxious. The home also involved people and families more in decisions.
There were some areas to improve. Records about mental capacity and best-interest decisions needed more detail. Staff gave mixed feedback about online training and preferred face-to-face training. The overall Good rating means the inspection found the service met the required standards in all five areas, but it was not rated Outstanding.
Kind relationships
Inspectors observed warm, caring and supportive interactions. Staff responded promptly and treated people with dignity and respect.
“People experienced kind, caring and supportive relationships with staff.” from the report
Greater independence
People were encouraged to prepare food, do household tasks and make choices. One person had started travelling independently to college by bus.
“People were supported to be independent when they were able.” from the report
Strong improvement
The management team had made significant improvements to people's quality of life, the home environment and the activity programme.
“There was a culture of continual improvement within the management team.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's preferences, routines, hobbies, health needs and living skills. Staff showed inspectors that they knew the people they supported well.
“People's individual needs were well described in their care plans.” from the report
Reduced use of some medicines
The report says medicines used as needed for anxiety-related behaviour had reduced significantly after people's needs and activities improved.
“The use of 'as required' medicines for behaviour relating to anxiety had reduced significantly.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome records about mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions needed more detail, especially for decisions with a significant effect on a person's life.
“We discussed with the registered manager how the records relating to the MCA could be improved further with more detailed recording.” from the report
Training format
minorSome staff said they preferred face-to-face training rather than the online system. This feedback was passed to the registered manager.
“Some staff said they preferred face to face training rather than the online training system that was in place” from the report
- 01How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded now, particularly for decisions that have a significant impact on a person's life?
- 02Have the planned improvements to medicines storage been completed, including the plan for storage in people's individual rooms?
- 03What face-to-face training is available for staff who prefer it to online training?
- 04How many staff are currently in post, and have all checks for recently recruited staff been completed?
- 05How are people and their families involved now through meetings, care planning and coffee mornings?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home; the previous inspection was in January 2014 and found no breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Red House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.