CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Redlands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Care plans and risk assessments were up to date and personalised, medicines systems were effective, and staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had received training and regular agency staff had a detailed induction. Care plans reflected people's needs, people had access to healthcare, and staff supported people to make choices about food and daily activities.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind and respectful interactions. Staff supported people's preferred communication methods, privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's preferences and communication needs. People were supported to take part in activities, go out, keep in touch with family and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had improved oversight and introduced stronger checks, audits and action plans. Staff, relatives and professionals reported that the service had improved and that the manager was approachable.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Good after major improvements from a previous Inadequate rating; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 27 and 28 September 2022. Inspectors spent time with six people, observed care, spoke with eight staff and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and service records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe and happy, staff understood their needs, care plans were detailed and personalised, and people were supported to make choices and take part in activities.
There had been major improvements since the previous inspection, which was rated Inadequate and found several legal breaches. The provider had improved safeguarding, risk management, staffing, recruitment, the building, record keeping and management checks. The home was no longer in breach of the regulations identified previously.
Inspectors found one ongoing record-keeping issue. Some daily observation records had gaps, although the manager had processes to identify and address this. The report says CQC will continue to monitor information about the service.
Person-centred support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and communication methods. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way and helped them make meaningful choices.
“The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of the management and staff provided support in the way each person preferred and enabled them to make meaningful choices.” from the report
Safeguarding and risk management
The provider had improved its systems for reporting safeguarding concerns and managing risks. Inspectors found care plans and risk assessments were detailed, current and followed in practice.
“At this inspection we found the provider had taken action to address these concerns. We saw evidence of the provider responding to safeguarding concerns and reporting appropriately.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were offered a range of activities suited to their preferences, including walks, meals out, sensory sessions and visits to local places. Staffing was available to support these choices.
“People were supported to make choices and staffing was available to facilitate their choices.” from the report
Improved environment
The home had undergone extensive refurbishment and redecoration. Inspectors found it visually clean, better maintained and adapted to people's sensory needs.
“Almost the entire home had been refurbished and redecorated.” from the report
Stronger management oversight
The provider had introduced more robust monitoring, audits and action plans. The management team was visible, approachable and focused on continued improvement.
“We found the provider had implemented robust systems and processes to monitor the service and drive improvements.” from the report
Gaps in daily records
minorSome daily observation records were incomplete. The manager said checks were in place to identify concerns and address them with staff, but this remained work in progress.
“Whilst the daily observation records had some gaps” from the report
- 01How do you check that daily observation records are complete, and what action is taken when there are gaps?
- 02How many regular agency staff currently work here, and what induction and training do they receive before supporting residents?
- 03How are my relative's care plans and risk assessments reviewed when their needs or preferences change?
- 04How would you support my relative's preferred communication method and their choice of daily activities?
- 05What checks are now used to make sure the improvements following the previous Inadequate inspection are maintained?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the previous Inadequate rating; inspectors checked all five areas and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 November 2022 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety and leadership failures, with improvements still needed in every area.
This was an unannounced inspection over four visits in March 2022. It began as a focused inspection about safeguarding and leadership, but was widened to cover all five areas after inspectors found further concerns. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a professional, observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home was not safe. Safeguarding incidents had not always been reported or investigated. Risk assessments and care plans were incomplete or contradictory. There were concerns about staffing, recruitment, cleanliness, maintenance, fire safety and how accidents were followed up. Medicines were managed safely.
People did not always receive personalised, respectful or consistent support. Activities and community access were not always available, and some staff did not respond promptly to people's needs. Leadership and quality checks were ineffective. The overall rating fell from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in October 2020, to Inadequate.
Medicines
Inspectors found that people received their medicines correctly. Storage, administration and records were effective, including a lockable container for medicines kept in shared areas.
“People received the correct medicines at the right time.” from the report
Visits and contact
The home supported visits and contact with relatives in line with the guidance in place at the time. People could see relatives and speak with them by phone.
“The provider facilitated visits for people with their relatives and friends in accordance with government guidance.” from the report
Personalised bedrooms
People had been involved in decisions about their bedrooms and décor, and their rooms were personalised.
“Some people told us, and evidence seen reflected this, they had been involved in making decisions about their bedrooms and the décor.” from the report
Some positive care
Inspectors saw some positive interactions. Some staff encouraged people to lead activities and to do tasks for themselves.
“We saw some positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Safeguarding was not reliable
seriousTwo safeguarding incidents had not been investigated or referred to the local authority. Inspectors also found unexplained discrepancies in financial records and raised concerns with the safeguarding team.
“We identified two safeguarding incidents which had not been explored or investigated by the provider and were not referred to the local authority safeguarding team.” from the report
Risk information was unsafe
seriousCare plans and risk assessments lacked important detail, contained conflicting or outdated information, or were missing for some risks. Staff therefore did not always have clear instructions to support people safely.
“Care plans and risk assessments not always containing enough detail to ensure people were supported safely, some care plans containing out of date information and not reflecting the support being provided to people and some care plans containing contradictory information.” from the report
Staffing and training
seriousThere was a heavy reliance on agency staff, with no consistent recorded induction. Important training was incomplete, including training linked to behaviour support and communication.
“We observed there was a heavy reliance on agency staff and found no evidence of a structured or recorded induction for agency staff.” from the report
Poor leadership checks
seriousManagement audits did not identify serious problems. Records were incomplete or unreliable, and incidents were not consistently investigated or used to improve care.
“The provider's oversight and governance of the service was ineffective in identifying the serious failings in relation to the safety, quality and standard of the service as detailed in the safe section of this report.” from the report
Premises and cleanliness
seriousSome areas were dirty and poorly maintained. Inspectors found potential fire hazards, incomplete safety checks and a damaged portable heater.
“There were poorly maintained areas of the home with dirty fixtures and fittings.” from the report
Inconsistent person-centred care
seriousPeople were not always offered meaningful activities, engagement or community access. Some staff redirected people without explaining why, and one person experienced a delay in receiving pain relief.
“People did not always receive care that was planned, personalised or responsive to their needs.” from the report
- 01What safeguarding incidents have been reviewed and reported since this inspection, and what changes were made as a result?
- 02How do you now make sure care plans and risk assessments are accurate, consistent and updated when people's needs change?
- 03How many agency staff are currently used, and what recorded induction and training do they receive before supporting people?
- 04What checks now confirm that incidents, falls, restrictive interventions and complaints are investigated and followed up?
- 05What has been done to improve cleanliness, repairs, fire safety checks, activities and access to the community?
The inspection began as a focused review of Safe and Well-led, but was widened to a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions after further concerns were found. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 June 2022 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Redlands
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2022Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 2016.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.