CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Redlands Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The home had enough staff, safe recruitment and medicine systems. Risks, equipment, fire safety, infection control and incidents were monitored.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's health, social and personal needs. Staff had relevant training and supervision, and worked with healthcare professionals when needed. Records of best-interest meeting outcomes were not always clear.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed treating people with warmth, kindness, dignity and respect. They offered choices, used preferred communication methods and promoted independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported with activities they chose, community involvement, relationships and communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Staff and relatives spoke positively about the management. Audits, surveys, meetings and action plans were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some best-interest decisions not clearly recorded.
This was a planned inspection of the two-person care home. One inspector visited on 16 August 2019, spoke with people, staff, managers, relatives and professionals, and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The inspectors found that people were safe and received person-centred support. Staff understood people's communication needs, promoted independence, supported activities and worked with health professionals. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, training and infection control were also found to be managed safely.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found one area to improve: records of best-interest meetings did not always clearly show the agreed outcome. This led to a recommendation, not a breach of regulations.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions and staff supporting people's choices, privacy and independence.
“There was a strongly embedded culture within the service of treating people with dignity, respect, compassion, warmth and kindness.” from the report
Good staffing and medicines safety
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks and medicine administration systems were in place.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, preferences and goals. Staff knew how to adapt their approach for each person.
“Comprehensive care plans clearly identified people's needs and the choices they had made about the care and support they received.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and to remain involved in their local community.
“People were supported to do activities of their choice and had access to a range of opportunities including eating out, shopping, cinema, bowling, swimming, holidays and days out at local attractions.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingAlthough staff understood mental capacity and best-interest decisions, the records did not always clearly show what had been agreed. Inspectors recommended improving these records.
“However, we found that the records of the best interest's meetings did not always clearly record the outcome agreed.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure the outcome of every best-interest meeting is clearly recorded?
- 02How will you support my relative's preferred communication method and check that their choices have been understood?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, based on their interests and abilities?
- 04How do you maintain staff consistency and manage the service if there are staff shortages?
- 05How are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when my relative's needs or behaviour changes?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with care, accommodation, records, staff files, medicines and management systems reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 November 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, February 2017
Redlands Lane was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with bathroom refurbishment still needed.
The announced inspection took place on 2 November 2016. One inspector reviewed care plans, records, staff recruitment and training, medicines, the building and quality checks. They spoke with managers and briefly with staff.
The home supported two people with complex learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable safeguarding and risk arrangements, safe medicines handling, and staff who understood people's needs. Care plans were personal and activities were arranged around each person's wishes.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The inspectors could not speak with or directly observe care in the usual way because people did not tolerate unfamiliar people, so they used records and observations from a distance as well as discussions with staff and managers.
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's preferences, relationships, communication and daily lives. Staff adapted support when people's needs changed.
“People's care plans were person centred and covered every aspect of their life.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff completed induction, supervision and training suited to the needs of the people living there. Their competence was checked before they worked alone.
“This ensured they had the knowledge and skills required to care for people who used the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff gave people time to make choices and used communication methods that worked for them. They respected privacy during personal care.
“We heard staff knocking and asking if they could come in before entering a person's room and staff closed doors when they were supporting people with personal care.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Managers used audits, incident reviews and action plans to monitor the service and follow up improvements.
“Following the monthly audit an action plan was developed and timescales set for actions.” from the report
Bathroom refurbishment
needs fixingInspectors said the bathroom would benefit from refurbishment so that it remained fit for purpose. The manager said this would be followed up with the provider.
“The environment was suitable for the needs of the people who used the service but the bathroom would benefit from some refurbishment in order that it remained fit for purpose.” from the report
- 01Has the bathroom refurbishment been completed, and if not, what is the timetable for the work?
- 02How is the home covering the staff vacancy, and will the same staff team continue to provide one-to-one support?
- 03How will staff support my relative to communicate choices and take part in decisions?
- 04How are risk assessments and support plans updated when a person's needs or distress triggers change?
- 05How are medicines audited to make sure they are given as prescribed and recorded correctly?
This was an announced inspection covering all five questions, but inspectors could not speak with or directly observe care in the usual way because people did not tolerate unfamiliar people. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 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 Redlands Lane
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
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.