CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Redhill Court Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and staff knew how to respond to abuse and emergencies. Inspectors identified late night medicines and some medicine storage and application issues, which the manager addressed during or after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training and competency checks. People received suitable food and drinks, healthcare support and care that followed mental capacity requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw kindness, respect for privacy and dignity, and support for people's independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's preferences and life histories. People had activities, accessible information and support to stay in touch with important people during the pandemic.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had effective oversight and used feedback, complaints and incident reviews to improve the service. A few issues, including hot-water and medicine concerns, were rectified quickly after inspectors raised them.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Redhill Court Residential Care Home is Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but some medicines and hot-water issues needed attention.
Inspectors carried out an unannounced visit on 7 September 2021. They spoke with 12 residents, seven relatives and eight staff. They observed medicines being given, reviewed care and medicines records, checked staff files and looked at how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate medicine systems and effective infection control. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, communication and contact with relatives.
There were some issues. The night medicine round was often late. Pain patches were not always applied according to the manufacturer's guidance, and one bottle of eye drops had passed its 28-day expiry after opening. Taps also needed to run for some time before the water became hot. The report says these issues were dealt with quickly.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and how to reduce risks such as falls.
“Staff and the management team took action to keep people safe and protect them from harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people kindly and respected their privacy, dignity and independence.
“People's right to privacy was respected, their independence was promoted, and their dignity was maintained.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences, interests and important relationships. Care records included life histories and information about what mattered to people.
“People received personalised care and the staff team demonstrated a shared commitment to providing good care.” from the report
Good communication and activities
People could take part in activities they enjoyed and were supported to keep contact with relatives during the pandemic. Menus and other information were available in accessible formats.
“People had been supported to keep in contact with people who were important to them during the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways including telephone calls and video calls.” from the report
Management oversight
The home used audits, feedback and reviews of incidents and complaints to identify improvements. Leaders were open with inspectors about recent challenges.
“Quality assurance systems were used to identify and address any areas that fell below the provider's expectation.” from the report
Late night medicines
needs fixingThe night medicine round was generally late. One person said they had to stay awake to receive their medicines.
“Medicines rounds were completed at the same time each day but the night round was generally late and one person told us they had to stay awake just for their medicines” from the report
Medicine checks
needs fixingPain patches were not always applied in line with the manufacturer's guidance. One opened bottle of eye drops was still available after its 28-day expiry period, although no harm was found and action was taken immediately.
“We identified that staff had not always ensured that pain patches were applied to people in accordance with manufacturers guidance.” from the report
Hot-water delay
minorSome taps needed to run for a while before the water became hot. The report says this was fixed quickly after inspectors raised it.
“These included taps that had to be run for some time before the water became hot and some minor issues relating to medicine management.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure night medicines are given on time, without people needing to stay awake?
- 02What checks now ensure pain patches are applied according to the manufacturer's guidance?
- 03How do you record opening dates and dispose of eye drops after 28 days?
- 04Has the delay in hot water from some taps been fully resolved, and how was this checked?
- 05How are night staffing levels reviewed when people's needs change?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that assessed all five key questions and included a check of infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 October 2021 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, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but a choking risk was not identified by the home's systems.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 08 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, complaints, accidents and audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, were treated kindly and received care that met their needs. Staff were available, medicines were managed properly and people had access to health professionals.
Inspectors found that two staff gave unsuitable meal choices to a person at risk of choking. The manager acted immediately when this was raised and provided further assurance after the inspection. The report also said the home's monitoring systems had not identified this risk before the inspection.
Staff availability
Inspectors saw staff respond to requests without rushing people. Staffing levels were reviewed against people's needs.
“There were staff available to meet people's care needs or answer any requests for support in a timely way.” from the report
Health support
People received support with food and drink and were helped to see health professionals when needed. Staff followed advice from other professionals.
“People had access to other healthcare professionals that provided treatment, advice and guidance to support their health needs.” from the report
Improved medicines arrangements
The report says the medicines system had improved since the previous inspection, when Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found medicines records and checks in place at this inspection.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made improvements with supporting people with their medication.” from the report
Choking risk
seriousTwo staff knew about one person's choking risk but provided unsuitable meal choices. The manager acted immediately after inspectors raised this and later gave assurance about action taken.
“Two care staff on the shift were aware of one person's risk of choking and potentially placed a person at risk of unnecessary harm by providing unsuitable meal choices.” from the report
Monitoring did not spot the risk
needs fixingThe home's audits and monitoring systems had not identified the potential choking risk before the inspection. Inspectors said further improvement was needed to show that risks were continually identified and reduced.
“However, the systems in place had failed to identify a potential risk to one person.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after inspectors found that unsuitable meal choices had been given to a person at risk of choking?
- 02How do you record each person's swallowing and choking risks, and how do you make sure every staff member follows the guidance?
- 03How do your audits now check that risks such as choking are identified and acted on before harm occurs?
- 04What medicines checks are carried out now, following the improvements noted since the previous inspection?
- 05How will you show families that the actions taken after this inspection have made care safer?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with observations, discussions with people, relatives and staff, and checks of care records, medicines and quality audits. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 June 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 Redhill Court Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Redhill Court Residential Care Home →
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Redhill Court Residential Care Home →
- February 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 August 2012.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.