CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Redcliffe House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were safe, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. Inspectors found one shower could exceed safe temperatures and some epilepsy-related risks had not initially been included in risk assessments.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supported people's health, nutrition, independence and communication. Some deprivation of liberty assessments were not accurate because they described external doors and exits incorrectly.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were compassionate and respected people's privacy, dignity and choices. People had positive relationships with staff and were helped to express their views.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported with activities, friendships, family contact and community involvement, although this rating had fallen from Outstanding at the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was approachable and understood their responsibilities. Quality checks, feedback and partnership working were used to improve the service.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Redcliffe House was rated Good overall, with kind and personalised care, but inspectors found some safety and legal safeguards needed attention.
Inspectors visited on 11 and 12 December 2019. They spoke with four people, five staff members and the registered manager. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found the home clean and safe, with enough staff, safe medicines procedures and staff who understood people's needs.
The care was described as compassionate and person-centred. People were supported to make choices, build independence, keep relationships and take part in activities they enjoyed. However, one shower could become too hot, some risk assessments were incomplete, and some deprivation of liberty records did not accurately describe the doors and exits.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection published on 28 April 2017. Responsive care fell from Outstanding to Good.
Kind, trusting relationships
Inspectors saw staff treating people with compassion and building positive relationships. Staff understood people's individual communication and emotional needs.
“There were many positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, learn new skills and take part in activities at their own pace.
“People were supported to be more independent and learn new skills.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to stay in contact with relatives and friends and to take part in community activities such as shopping, meals out and leisure activities.
“People were supported to access activities in the community.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
There were enough staff, and recruitment checks were completed. Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of using safe procedures.
“There were enough staff employed to support the care needs of the eight people who lived at the care home.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager and provider used audits, feedback and an improvement plan to monitor the home and respond to issues.
“An effective quality assurance system was in place.” from the report
Shower temperature
seriousOne shower could become hot enough to scald someone. It was taken out of use immediately, and the manager said it would be replaced after the inspection.
“However, the temperature of one shower unit could exceed safe levels and there was the potential for people to be scalded.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not initially cover the risks for people with epilepsy who were supported with bathing or swimming. The manager updated these after inspectors raised the issue.
“Some people's assessments did not identify the risks to people, who had epilepsy, and who were supported with bathing or swimming.” from the report
Inaccurate liberty safeguards records
needs fixingSome legal assessments said that all external doors had key-code locks and that people could not leave freely. Inspectors found this was not always accurate, so the arrangements were due to be reviewed.
“DoLS assessments were not always accurate.” from the report
Lower responsive rating
minorResponsive care was still rated Good, but it had fallen from Outstanding since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection this key question has now deteriorated to good.” from the report
- 01Has the shower that could exceed safe temperatures been replaced, and how are shower temperatures now checked?
- 02How are risks linked to epilepsy, bathing and swimming recorded and reviewed?
- 03How do you make sure deprivation of liberty assessments accurately describe which doors are locked and how people can leave?
- 04What changes have been made since the Responsive rating fell from Outstanding to Good?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans, activities and daily choices?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, with the previous overall rating also Good and the Responsive rating carried forward as a comparison from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 January 2020 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, April 2017
Redcliffe House was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care and Outstanding support for people's individual interests and goals.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 March 2017. The inspector reviewed care records, medicines, staff recruitment and training, complaints, meeting notes and quality checks. They spoke with managers, staff and relatives, and observed people because communication needs meant they could not get direct feedback from people using the home.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk planning and good support with health, food and decision-making. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs.
Responsive care was rated Outstanding. Staff supported people to pursue personal interests, friendships, activities and dreams, including holidays, community activities and individual hobbies. The home was rated Good overall, which means inspectors found the service met the required standards and provided a good level of care at the time of the inspection.
Personal goals and interests
Staff went beyond basic activities and helped people achieve ambitions that mattered to them. This included supporting hobbies, friendships, holidays and challenging personal goals.
“Staff had been creative and had used innovative approaches to support people with their dreams and aspirations.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff offering patience, reassurance and encouragement. Staff understood people's communication and emotional needs.
“Staff were kind, caring and respectful towards the people they supported.” from the report
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, including planned one-to-one support. Staffing could be adjusted for people's needs and activities.
“There were sufficient and experienced staff available to meet people's needs and safety and staffing levels were flexible to meet people's individual needs.” from the report
Good autism knowledge
The registered manager had specialist autism training and had created extra learning materials for staff. The home had also achieved autism accreditation.
“The registered manager had a post graduate qualification in autism and had developed additional learning resources to support and develop staff's understanding and awareness.” from the report
Checks and improvements
The provider used regular audits and reviews covering areas such as medicines, accidents, health and safety and care plans.
“There was a system of audits and processes in place that continually checked on quality and safety.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you learn and support my relative's preferred way of communicating, especially if they cannot easily express their needs verbally?
- 02How will you make sure staffing levels and any one-to-one support remain available when staff are off sick or on leave?
- 03How are medicines, including medicines given only when needed, checked and reviewed for each person?
- 04What specific activities, friendships, community opportunities and personal ambitions could you support for my relative?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing care plans, risks, decisions and any complaints?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors could not obtain direct feedback from people using the home because of their communication and autism-related needs, so they used observations as well as other evidence. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 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 Redcliffe House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 April 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.