CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Redgate House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staff were safely recruited, and medicines and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, dietary and care needs were assessed. Staff received training and people were supported to access healthcare and make choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness and respect. Inspectors saw people being involved in choices and supported to maintain their privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's individual needs and preferences. People could take part in activities, maintain relationships and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive management, staff who understood their roles, and systems for monitoring quality and acting on feedback.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some liberty safeguards still awaiting authorisation.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 22 August 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff were available, medicines were managed safely, and people received support with their health, food and activities.
This was an improvement from the previous Requires Improvement rating. Safe, Effective and Well-led improved to Good. Caring and Responsive remained Good.
Risk and medicines safety
Risks such as falls, pressure ulcers and eating and drinking were assessed. Medicines were stored securely and records were completed appropriately.
“People's care records showed that risks in their daily living were assessed and mitigated.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate respectfully and support people's choices, privacy, dignity and independence.
“We saw that the staff interacted with people in a caring and respectful way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's preferences, communication needs and ways to support them when distressed. People were offered activities and one-to-one support if they did not want group activities.
“People's care records demonstrated that their individual needs were assessed, planned for and met.” from the report
Good healthcare links
The home worked with healthcare professionals and made referrals when people's wellbeing changed. Guidance from professionals was added to care plans.
“A healthcare professional who regularly visited the service confirmed that the staff worked well with them and were proactive in reporting and recognising when there were issues with people's wellbeing.” from the report
Listening and improvement
People and relatives were asked for their views. The management team used audits, complaints and feedback to identify and address improvements.
“The registered manager and general manager had a programme of audits which assisted them to identify any shortfalls and address them promptly.” from the report
Some liberty safeguards were not yet authorised
needs fixingInspectors found that referrals had been made for people who were deprived of their liberty, but the appropriate professionals had not yet authorised them. Ask the home which authorisations are now in place and how it checks them.
“Referrals had been made where people had been deprived of their liberty, these had not yet been authorised by the appropriate professionals.” from the report
- 01Have all the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards referrals mentioned in the report now been authorised?
- 02How do you check that any restrictions on a person's liberty remain legally authorised and in their best interests?
- 03Have all people's care records now been reviewed and updated?
- 04How do you make sure staff have the training and competency needed to support people living with dementia and with eating or drinking risks?
- 05How do you use feedback from people and relatives to make changes to the service?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 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.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Redgate House Residential Home rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but weaknesses in risk assessments, legal safeguards and management.
This was the first inspection since registration. It was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 6 August 2018. Inspectors spoke with managers, care staff and relatives, observed care, and reviewed care records, policies, training and recruitment records.
The home supported up to 20 people living with dementia, and all 20 places were occupied on the inspection day. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect, received food and drink choices, and could take part in activities. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were also found to be suitable.
However, some care plans did not clearly describe risks or the support people needed. The home had not applied for the required legal authorisations where people's freedom to leave was restricted. Overall, the home was rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good, while Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed compassionate interactions. Staff knew people's backgrounds, preferences and care needs, and respected their privacy.
“People were treated with respect, kindness and compassion.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, ordered and administered safely. Staff training and competency checks were in place, although instructions for some medicines given when needed needed more detail.
“Medicines were managed and administered to people as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose from individual and group activities, outings, visiting entertainers and use of the secure garden.
“There were a variety of activities which people could participate in according to their interests.” from the report
Food and mealtimes
Inspectors saw a relaxed and sociable meal. People had enough food and drink and were offered choices.
“People had sufficient food and drink and were provided with choices at mealtimes.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousCare plans did not always explain people's risks or the support needed. This included risks linked to falls, epilepsy, eating and swallowing, so people might not receive the right support.
“Care plans did not always contain suitable risk assessments.” from the report
Restrictions not legally authorised
seriousPeople could not leave independently because keypad access was controlled, but the required applications for legal authorisation had not been made at the time of inspection.
“No DoLS applications had been made to the local authority to ensure this restriction on people's liberty were lawfully in place.” from the report
Slow management response
needs fixingThe provider knew that care plans needed improvement, but checks and action had not happened quickly enough. People continued receiving care with poor risk information in place.
“the monitoring procedures and provider response had been slow which had resulted in people receiving care and support with poor risk assessments in place.” from the report
End of life planning
minorInformation about people's wishes for end of life care was not consistent. Inspectors recommended that the home seek further advice about planning for this care.
“One care plan we looked at contained detailed information with regard to people's wishes on their end of life care. However, another did not.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans now been updated with clear risk assessments, especially for falls, epilepsy, eating and swallowing?
- 02Have applications for the required legal safeguards for restrictions on people's movement been made, and what were the outcomes?
- 03How are medicines prescribed to be given when needed now described and checked?
- 04How will you involve residents and families in regular care plan reviews and end of life decisions?
- 05What checks are now in place to make sure management identifies and fixes problems promptly?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas of quality and was the first inspection since the home registered. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 September 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 Redgate House Residential Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Redgate House Residential Home →
- September 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Redgate House Residential Home →
- June 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 June 2017.
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.