CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Redmount Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks to people's health and safety were assessed and managed, and medicines were given safely as prescribed. Inspectors still found gaps in one person's repositioning records, and some staff said more staff could be needed at mealtimes.
- Effective?
- Good
- The home improved mealtimes, monitored people's weights and acted when there were concerns. Staff training, care assessments, consent processes and links with health professionals were found to be effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors saw positive interactions, respect for privacy and support for people's independence and personal choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's preferences, routines and communication needs. People were supported to maintain relationships, take part in activities and receive personalised end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and quality monitoring had improved, but inspectors said leadership was not yet consistent and records still had gaps. There was no registered manager in post during the inspection, although an application was later submitted.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, but the home was not always well-led.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 25 and 26 January 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
People said they were happy and well cared for. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, infection control, staffing, food and care planning had improved. People were treated with kindness, supported to make choices and helped to keep relationships and take part in activities.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because leadership needed to become consistent and improvements needed to be maintained over time. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, and there were no regulatory breaches at this inspection.
Safer care planning
Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and up to date. Staff had clear information about risks such as falls, skin damage, nutrition and hydration.
“At this inspection care plans and risk assessments were detailed and up to date which meant staff had guidance on how to manage people's care safely.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were managed more safely than at the previous inspection. Staff had training and checks, and records, storage and disposal arrangements were suitable.
“There had been improvements to the way people's medicines were managed since our previous inspection. People now received their medicines in a safe way, as prescribed for them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, respect and attention to their privacy.
“People told us they were happy living at the service and staff were kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, choices and routines. The home also supported communication needs through picture menus, large print and other aids.
“People's care plans contained information about their preferences and choices and how their care and support should be provided.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to join activities and maintain relationships. An activities co-ordinator had been employed since the previous inspection.
“During the inspection we observed people were supported and encouraged to take part in a wide range of activities.” from the report
Leadership still needs to settle
needs fixingWell-led was rated Requires Improvement because the home needed to show that its improved leadership would be sustained. There was no registered manager in post during the inspection.
“At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent.” from the report
Gaps in records
needs fixingInspectors found gaps in one person's repositioning charts and said the management team had identified other record-keeping gaps that still needed attention.
“Whilst repositioning charts had been completed more consistently, we still found gaps in one person's recording charts.” from the report
Mealtime staffing
needs fixingSome staff said they could do with more staff during mealtimes so people needing support could receive it promptly. The manager planned to trial a different way of working.
“However, some staff told us they could do with more staff during mealtimes to ensure people who needed support were supported appropriately and in a timely way.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing and staff roles at mealtimes since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that repositioning records are completed every time?
- 03What other record-keeping gaps were identified, and how are they being monitored?
- 04Has the manager's application to register with CQC been completed and accepted?
- 05How are you checking that the improvements found at this inspection are being sustained?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, carried out to check improvements after the previous inspection and including infection prevention and control checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 2023 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, August 2022
Rated Requires Improvement overall, with Inadequate leadership and serious gaps in risk management, medicines, dignity and person-centred care.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection carried out over four days in March 2022. Inspectors reviewed care records, medicines, staff files, management records and the home’s safety arrangements. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and other professionals.
Inspectors found repeated problems from earlier inspections had not been fully fixed. Risks were not always assessed or monitored properly. Medicines were missed or not recorded correctly. Some people did not receive the pressure care, food, fluids or staff support they needed. Infection control and fire safety also needed improvement.
Some relatives said staff were kind and caring, people felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding procedures. However, inspectors found weak leadership, poor record keeping and disrespectful language from some staff. The overall rating remained Requires Improvement for the third consecutive inspection, while Well-led fell to Inadequate.
Safeguarding awareness
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns to the home and outside agencies.
“Staff had been trained in safeguarding procedures and knew what action to take to protect people from harm and abuse.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The home carried out checks before new staff started work, including references and criminal record checks.
“People were protected by safe recruitment processes.” from the report
Accident reviews
Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed to look for lessons that might prevent them happening again.
“Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed by the manager to identify any learning which may help to prevent a reoccurrence.” from the report
Health care links
Staff worked with health professionals, including GPs and community teams, to support people’s health needs.
“Staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people's healthcare needs were met, such as, GPs and community-based health professionals to manage people's ongoing health conditions.” from the report
Risks and medicines
seriousRisk assessments and monitoring records were not reliable. People missed medicines, including antibiotic doses, and medicines records contained errors.
“People were placed at risk of unsafe care as their care needs and associated risks had not been routinely assessed, updated and monitored.” from the report
Weight, fluids and skin care
seriousAction was not always taken quickly when people lost weight or had low fluid intake. Repositioning schedules and evidence of prescribed skin creams were missing for some people at risk.
“People at risk of losing weight were not always managed safely.” from the report
Fire and infection safety
seriousStaff did not always use masks and other protective equipment correctly. Several fire safety actions from an earlier assessment were still outstanding.
“The provider had not addressed all fire safety actions identified from the previous fire risk assessment dated September 2020.” from the report
Mealtimes and staffing
needs fixingSome people were left waiting for help to eat and drink. Meal times were set around kitchen staffing, and food and drink records were not always accurate.
“People who required support and assistance were being left for long periods of time as staff were busy in other parts of the service.” from the report
Dignity and respect
seriousSome staff used disrespectful or unprofessional language. A person’s toileting needs were discussed where other people could hear.
“The provider had failed to ensure that people were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Weak leadership
seriousQuality checks failed to identify repeated problems in care, records, medicines, infection control and staff induction. The home had no registered manager in post since January 2022.
“The lack of robust governance systems meant people were at risk of receiving unsafe care.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure medicines, including short courses such as antibiotics, are given and recorded correctly?
- 02How do you now monitor weight loss, fluid intake, repositioning and prescribed skin creams?
- 03What fire safety actions were outstanding, and have they now all been completed?
- 04How are staffing levels and staff deployment arranged so people get timely help with eating, drinking and personal care?
- 05How do you check that capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and consent records are completed lawfully?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 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.
Every inspection of Redmount Residential Care Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Redmount Residential Care Home →
- August 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Redmount Residential Care Home →
- July 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.