CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Redcourt
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. This included PPE, testing, social distancing, visitor controls and plans for managing an outbreak.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were in place during the coronavirus pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 23 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found that the home had suitable policies, PPE supplies and staff training. They were assured that visitors, new admissions, testing, social distancing and outbreak planning were being managed safely.
The home was closed to visitors at the time. People were supported to contact relatives by phone or video calls, and staff had moved into the home during the first wave to reduce infection risks.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give a full rating for the home or assess all five areas of care.
Staff reduced infection risks
During the first wave, staff moved into the home to reduce the risk of bringing coronavirus in or spreading it.
“During the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, staff moved in to the home to reduce the risk of them contracting or spreading coronavirus.” from the report
Contact with relatives
Although visitors were not allowed at the time, people could keep in touch with relatives by phone or video call.
“People were supported to keep in touch with relatives over the phone or with video calls.” from the report
PPE arrangements
The provider had supplies of PPE, and staff had training and designated areas for putting it on and taking it off safely.
“The provider had sourced supplies of PPE and staff wore this appropriately.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans to separate areas and group people safely if someone tested positive for coronavirus.
“There were plans in place to zone off and cohort areas of the home if they did have anyone who tested positive for coronavirus.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current arrangements for visits, and how can relatives keep in touch if visiting is restricted?
- 02How are new people admitted safely, including testing and any period of isolation?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and how are people supported to understand the testing process?
- 04What would happen if someone tested positive for coronavirus, and how would areas of the home be separated?
- 05What were the home’s ratings in the other areas of care at its previous full inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 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 2019
Redcourt was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some medicines checks needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 March 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with nine people, five staff and the manager. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff records, incidents, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, had enough staff support and received care based on their needs. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and supported their choices, independence and community activities.
Inspectors found some problems with medicines management. Medicine storage temperatures were not being recorded and there were no written protocols for medicines given only when needed. The manager said these issues were addressed after the inspection, and inspectors found no evidence that medicines had been overused.
The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published in May 2016. The overall Good rating means the service met legal requirements and inspectors found consistently good care, although it still had areas to improve.
Kind relationships
Staff had positive relationships with people and responded calmly when they were upset or distressed. People appeared comfortable seeking reassurance from staff.
“People were relaxed and happy in the presence of staff and when staff passed by, they reached out to them or engaged with them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make day-to-day choices, take part in care planning and remain as independent as possible. Staff also supported people to use local community facilities.
“People were encouraged to be involved in day to day activities and be as independent as possible.” from the report
Accessible support
The home used pictures and symbols in care plans, menus and signs to help people understand information. The renovated building included features to support wheelchair access and mobility.
“Information around the home was presented in words and pictures to aid accessibility.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with health and social care professionals through regular meetings. This helped the home review people's needs and make referrals where necessary.
“Staff met with other professionals providing support and specialist advice on a monthly basis in a 'consultancy clinic'.” from the report
Open management
Staff said communication was good and they could raise concerns. The home used quality checks and took action when issues were identified.
“Processes were in place to monitor the quality of the services provided.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingThe temperature of rooms used to store medicines was not being recorded. There were also no written protocols for medicines prescribed to be given only when needed, although inspectors found no evidence of overuse and the manager said both issues were addressed after the visit.
“However, we identified that the temperature of the rooms used to store medicines were not recorded, to ensure they remained within recommended limits.” from the report
Care plan detail
minorCare plans contained the key information staff needed, but the amount of detail was not consistent. Ask how the home makes sure important information is complete and easy for staff to follow.
“These contained a variable amount of detail; however key information was included and they were updated when people's needs changed.” from the report
- 01How are medicine storage temperatures now recorded, checked and acted on?
- 02What written protocols are in place for medicines prescribed to be given only when needed?
- 03How do you check that my relative's care plan contains enough detail for all staff to provide consistent support?
- 04What formal process now tracks actions from audits and plans for future development?
- 05What progress has been made with the planned sensory garden and refurbishment of the inner courtyard?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 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.
Every inspection of Redcourt
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.