CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Red House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks to people and the environment were generally well managed, and there were enough staff for assessed needs. Inspectors found some medicines issues, including unclear guidance and medicines not always being given at the best time, but these were acted on immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, food and drink needs were supported, and staff received training and support. Records about people's mental capacity and consent were sometimes unclear.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and choices, and supported independence. Some people were worried that one waking night staff member might not always be enough.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's routines, preferences and changing needs. Activities were available, but there were days when no activities were planned and some people felt there were not enough.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The service was described as open, organised and well managed, with a development plan for improvements. Managers responded promptly to the issues raised during the inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Red House Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, reliable care, with some records, activities and night staffing arrangements needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 June 2018. Two inspectors and an expert by experience visited the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated kindly, their needs were assessed and reviewed, and risks were generally managed well. Staff were described as familiar with people's needs and responsive to requests.
The inspection also found some areas to improve. These included occasional medicines problems, unclear mental capacity records, limited planned activities on some days, and concerns from some people about having only one waking night staff member. The provider dealt with several issues immediately.
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people well and adapted support to their preferences, routines and personal interests. Inspectors saw respectful and friendly relationships.
“The staff are wonderful, I cannot fault them, they are very kind and that does make a difference to me.” from the report
Care plans and risk management
People's needs and risks were assessed, recorded and reviewed. Staff had information about how to provide care safely and responded promptly when needs changed.
“People had their needs assessed and their care plans showed how their needs were going to be met.” from the report
Open management
The management team had a development plan and acted straight away on issues raised by inspectors. People and staff generally felt the service was well run.
“The service was well planned and well delivered.” from the report
Medicines practice
needs fixingInspectors found some medicines were not always dated, some time-sensitive medicines were given too close to breakfast, and guidance for occasional medicines was not always clear. The provider corrected these issues or agreed actions immediately.
“Minor issues were identified with the safe administration of medicines but these were rectified immediately and did not have a significant impact on people using the services.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingRecords did not always clearly show how decisions were made for people who might lack capacity, including decisions about medicines and care. The manager agreed to review this urgently.
“People's capacity to make specific and individual decisions, were not always clearly documented.” from the report
Night-time staffing
needs fixingSome people were worried that one waking night staff member might not be enough, particularly if someone needed help to use the toilet. Inspectors found no evidence that people's needs were unmet and noted an on-call arrangement.
“The only exception to this is some people living in the residential home raised concern about only having one member of night staff on duty.” from the report
Activities
minorActivities were offered and planned around people's interests, but activity staff were not always at the home. Some people felt there were not enough activities.
“Activities were planned around people's individual needs but there were days when there were no planned activities.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorRecruitment checks were in place, but interview records were generic and did not always show that declared convictions had been properly considered. The provider said recruitment could be more robust.
“Staff recruitment was sufficiently robust to help ensure only suitable staff were employed.” from the report
- 01How many staff are awake and available overnight, and what happens if a resident needs help at the same time as someone else?
- 02How do you now check that medicines are dated, given at the right time and supported by clear instructions?
- 03How do you record mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and representatives' legal authority?
- 04What activities are planned each week, and what happens on days when activity staff are not present?
- 05What improvements from the inspection are still being monitored, and can we see evidence of the latest checks?
This inspection covered both the residential home and the linked domiciliary care service, and assessed all five CQC questions, although some evidence related to people receiving care in their own homes. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 August 2018 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but medicines were not always managed safely.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 March 2017. One inspector visited the care home and home care office, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and quality records.
The main problem was medicines in the care home. Records did not always match the medicines in stock, and one person appears to have received double the prescribed dose on two days. This created a potential risk of harm and breached Regulation 12.
The other four areas were rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, kind and respectful care, suitable support with food and health, care that reflected people's needs, and improved management systems. The overall rating was Requires Improvement because of the medicines concerns.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions and staff responding quickly when someone became anxious. People were supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff had developed warm and compassionate relationships with people using the service both in their own homes and in the care home.” from the report
Enough staff
People said there were enough staff, and inspectors saw staff respond promptly to call bells. Home care users said they had not experienced missed calls.
“People felt that there were enough staff to meet their needs safely.” from the report
Support with health and nutrition
Staff monitored people's food, drink and weight where needed. They sought advice from health professionals when people's health required it.
“Staff supported people to get advice about their health and wellbeing.” from the report
Improved management
The provider had acted on the two breaches found at the January 2016 inspection. Monitoring, staff support and care records had improved.
“At this inspection, we found that action had been taken and there was no longer a breach of the regulation for good governance.” from the report
Medicine errors and inaccurate records
seriousMedicine balances did not always match the records. One person appears to have received twice the prescribed dose on two successive days, creating a risk of harmful side effects.
“One person had not received their medicines as the prescriber intended.” from the report
Fire door repairs delayed
needs fixingChecks identified problems with fire doors, including one bedroom door that did not close fully. The issue had not been fixed promptly when inspectors visited.
“The outcome of checks in both February and March 2017 showed this but the door had not yet been mended.” from the report
Complaint information out of date
minorSome displayed complaints information did not explain how to escalate a complaint if the registered manager could not resolve it. The information was removed during the inspection for updating.
“Some aspects of this were out of date and it did not show how a person could escalate their complaint” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine checks since the inspection, and how do you make sure stock balances match the records?
- 02How do you check that staff give each medicine at the prescribed dose and report any error immediately?
- 03Were the fire door problems identified in February and March 2017 repaired, and how are fire safety checks now followed up?
- 04Can we see the current complaints procedure, including how a complaint can be escalated if the manager cannot resolve it?
- 05How are care plans and records reviewed now that the new care planning system has been introduced?
This was an unannounced inspection of both the care home and home care office, with follow-up calls to people receiving care at home; the report assessed all five areas and provided ratings for both parts of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 May 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 Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 March 2015.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.