CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Red Roof
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were considered safe, with risk assessments, safeguarding procedures and safe medicines systems in place. However, two people said more staff would sometimes have helped them go out when they wanted.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and understood people's health, nutrition and support needs. Inspectors found gaps in restraint records and said staff supervision was not always happening at the expected frequency.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described and observed as warm, polite and respectful. People were supported with privacy, dignity, family relationships and day-to-day choices.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- The home tailored support closely to each person. Inspectors found many examples of people developing independence, taking part in activities, achieving goals and having restrictions reduced where appropriate.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was visible and approachable, and there were regular meetings and quality checks. Some quality checks had identified gaps in records and care documentation that needed improvement.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found outstandingly responsive, person-centred support, with some staffing and record-keeping issues.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection. The inspector reviewed care records, staffing, training, medicines, policies and other records. They spoke with people, staff, managers and relatives, and observed care.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive. Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices, build independence, join in activities and maintain family relationships.
The inspection also found some issues. Two people said there were times when more staff would have helped them go out. There were gaps in some restraint records, and staff supervision was not always happening as often as expected. The home had identified some of these points and was taking action.
The overall Good rating continued from the previous inspection in 2016. Inspectors found no evidence of serious risks or concerns and no breaches of regulations at that earlier inspection.
Highly individual support
Support was tailored to each person's communication, behaviour, interests and goals. Staff helped people make progress towards education, work, relationships and greater independence.
“The service was exceptionally responsive supporting people in a very person centred way.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk support
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Risks were assessed while still supporting people to be as independent as possible.
“Medicines policies and procedures were followed and medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Warm and respectful care
Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. Staff understood people's preferences, privacy needs and personal histories.
“We saw that staff interacted with people in a friendly, warm, professional manner and at all times staff were polite and caring.” from the report
Strong activities and achievements
People were supported to attend college, work placements, sports, shops and community activities. The home kept records of achievements and used them to recognise people's progress.
“There were many examples where the staff had supported people to gain independence from having control over their medicines to going out on their own.” from the report
Open management
Managers worked alongside staff and encouraged people, relatives and staff to share their views. Meetings and quality checks were used to plan improvements.
“There were effective quality assurance arrangements in place to monitor care and plan ongoing improvements.” from the report
Staffing and outings
needs fixingTwo people said that at times there were not enough staff to help them go out when they wanted. This had also been raised in residents' meetings, although managers said minimum staffing levels were in place.
“Although two people told us at times they felt the home could do with more staff to enable them to go out when they wanted.” from the report
Restraint records
needs fixingSome records of restraint were incomplete. The manager said this would be addressed as a priority.
“There were some gaps in the recording. The registered manager told us this was because a new book had been started and they had been on annual leave.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff went three months without formal supervision, rather than receiving it at the provider's expected six-weekly intervals. Supervision training was being provided to senior staff.
“Some staff had a period of three months with no formal supervision.” from the report
Care records
minorA provider quality inspection had found that some care documents were not on the correct template and that some records had gaps. The manager said an action plan would be developed.
“The recent two day inspection had identified some areas that required improvement such as care documentation being on the correct template and gaps in some records.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally available at weekends, and how do you make sure people can still go out when they want?
- 02What has changed to make sure restraint records are complete and written promptly after an incident?
- 03Are staff now receiving supervision every six weeks, and how is this monitored?
- 04What action was taken about care documents being on the correct template and gaps in records?
- 05What progress has been made since the previous 2016 inspection, particularly in reducing restrictions and supporting people to live more independently?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the accommodation and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 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.
Every inspection of Red Roof
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 June 2014.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.