CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Reddington House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection safely. This included visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
The inspection took place on 26 November 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic, focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors checked how the home managed visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks. They were assured that the home had safe arrangements in all these areas.
The home supported people with learning disabilities who may show behaviour that could challenge themselves or others. Staff used people's support plans to reduce distress when protective equipment was needed.
This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care. The home was inspected but not rated, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Respect for testing decisions
People's capacity to consent to regular COVID-19 testing was assessed. Staff respected each person's decision about whether to take part.
“On each occasion tests were offered staff respected people's decision about whether to take part.” from the report
Support with protective equipment
Staff used people's positive behaviour support plans to reassure those who found protective equipment distressing.
“Over time this enabled people to tolerate the use of PPE.” from the report
Social distancing support
People were supported to use shared areas safely and were offered activities in their rooms and exercise in the garden.
“People were supported with activities in their rooms and to use the garden for exercise.” from the report
Support for isolating staff
The provider used empty properties to help staff isolate safely. Isolating staff could also join a group chat for support.
“Staff who were isolating were offered the chance to take part in a group chat to share experiences and support.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently supporting people who find staff wearing protective equipment distressing?
- 02How do you assess and respect each person's capacity to consent to COVID-19 or other regular testing?
- 03How do you currently manage visitors, social distancing and infection outbreaks?
- 04How are people supported to take part in activities if communal areas need to be restricted?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care, which were not covered in this inspection?
This was an announced 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 16 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, November 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with an issue affecting the fire system dealt with during the visit.
The CQC visited on 5 and 11 October 2017 without announcing the visits. One inspector spoke with three people, staff, managers and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, rotas and quality checks.
The home provided care for four people with learning disabilities at the time. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, trained staff and detailed personal care plans. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, maintain friendships and take part in activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was still rated Good, as it had been at the inspection in October 2015.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were consistent and people received prompt support. Staff were also replaced when absent or on annual leave.
“There was sufficient staff on duty at all times to ensure that people received the care they needed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, privacy and respect. Staff supported people patiently and included them in conversations and daily decisions.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. People and staff chatted with us throughout lunch and everyone was included in the conversation.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, communication methods, routines and support needs. Pictorial information helped people understand their plans.
“The care and support plans were personalised with people's preferences and choices and pictorial guidance was used to help people understand their plans.” from the report
Activities and friendships
People chose activities, tried new things and were supported to maintain friendships. A social club had been started to help people meet regularly.
“A new social club was formed with an opportunity of friends meeting up every two weeks.” from the report
Management oversight
The management team sought feedback and used audits to identify and address shortfalls. Staff said they felt supported and valued.
“Robust auditing procedures were in place to assess the quality of care being provided.” from the report
Fire system issue
seriousInspectors found problems with the fire system during the visit. The provider arranged for a contractor to attend, put risk assessments in place and added a staff member to check the premises.
“During the inspection there were issues with the fire system.” from the report
- 01What was wrong with the fire system during the inspection, and was it fully repaired afterwards?
- 02How are people's medicines checked, including medicines given only when needed?
- 03How will you involve my relative in creating and reviewing their personalised care plan?
- 04What activities and support would be available to help my relative maintain friendships and develop independence?
- 05How would my relative or family raise a complaint, including if they need pictorial information?
This was an unannounced inspection looking at the overall quality of the home and rating all five CQC areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 November 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 Reddington House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.