CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Redstone House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were generally managed well, although protective equipment was not used correctly on the first visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was consistently managed and had an open, positive culture. However, care plans needed updating so they fully reflected people's needs and preferences.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Redstone House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but some care records needed more detail.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 and 23 March 2022. Inspectors spoke with three people, three relatives, four staff and two visiting professionals. They reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, risks were managed, medicines were handled safely and staffing was sufficient. Staff knew people well, supported their independence and worked with health professionals.
Inspectors found that some care plans and risk assessments did not contain enough detail. Staff were not always using protective equipment correctly on the first visit, but this was corrected immediately. The overall rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in October 2019.
This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other three key-question ratings were not reassessed and the overall rating used previous ratings for those areas.
Promoting independence
People were supported to make choices, learn skills and live as independently as possible. Staff also managed risks while supporting this independence.
“People were encouraged to have control in their daily lives and staff ensured people were able to live as independently as possible.” from the report
Safe care
Staff understood people's individual risks and knew how to respond. Medicines, emergency plans and safety checks were managed appropriately.
“Risks to people were regularly assessed and monitored.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their rights and privacy, and supported their choices.
“Staff were kind and caring. They treated people with respect and encouraged them to make decisions about their care and support.” from the report
Good communication
Families were kept informed and people had regular opportunities to give feedback. Communication aids were available to help people express their choices.
“There was good communication with people's family members.” from the report
Care records needed more detail
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments did not fully describe people's needs, preferences or the support they required. The manager said these would be reviewed.
“People's care plans needed updating to ensure they were person centred and reflected all of their needs and preferences.” from the report
Protective equipment was not always used correctly
minorOn the first visit, staff did not always use protective equipment in line with current guidance. The manager addressed this immediately and inspectors saw correct use on the second visit.
“On our first visit we saw that staff were not always using PPE in line with current guidance.” from the report
- 01When will the care plans and risk assessments be fully updated, and how will you check that they reflect each person's needs and preferences?
- 02How do you check that staff use protective equipment correctly on every shift?
- 03What are the current ratings and recent evidence for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not assessed in this inspection?
- 04How are people and their families involved in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
- 05How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's risks and support needs?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key-question ratings were not reassessed and previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Redstone House is rated Requires Improvement; care improved greatly, but inspectors needed more evidence that safety and management changes would last.
The inspection took place on 19 August 2019. The inspector spoke with all three residents, five staff members and two relatives after the visit. They also reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home had made significant improvements since its previous inspection. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and staff had better training. People received kind, personalised support and had more opportunities for activities, independence and community life.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement because the improvements were still new and needed to be shown to be consistent and lasting. Effective, caring and responsive were rated Good.
The previous rating was Inadequate and the home had been in Special Measures since February 2019. It was no longer in breach of the regulations, was no longer rated Inadequate, and was taken out of Special Measures.
Improved staffing
The home had recruited more staff and inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs and keep them safe.
“Since our last inspection new staff had been recruited and staffing levels were now sufficient to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. The records inspectors reviewed were accurate and up to date.
“The medicines administration records we checked were up-to-date and accurate, and recorded that people had been given their medicines in accordance with the prescription.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well, were kind, caring and developed positive relationships with them.” from the report
More personalised activities
People had better access to activities they enjoyed, including swimming, bowling and going to the cinema. Care plans gave staff clearer guidance about each person's needs and preferences.
“The activities provision for people had improved. People had much greater access to the local community and activities they enjoyed, such as swimming, bowling, and going to the cinema.” from the report
Improved food and independence
People could access the kitchen, choose where to eat and take part in preparing food and drinks. Staff supported healthy choices and monitored people's weights.
“People had access to the kitchen throughout the day, so they could make meals, snacks and drinks whenever they wanted.” from the report
Safety still needed monitoring
seriousSafe was rated Requires Improvement. Although risk management and safeguarding had improved, CQC said there was limited assurance that the changes would last.
“This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety.” from the report
Management was not yet fully established
needs fixingWell-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home did not have a registered manager at the inspection, and CQC wanted evidence that the new management systems were sustained.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Changes needed to become consistent
needs fixingThe provider had corrected earlier failings, but CQC said it needed more time to see that the improvements were part of everyday practice.
“Time was now needed for the provider to demonstrate the improvements were embedded into every day practice and could be maintained.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that risk assessments, safeguarding procedures and safety plans are followed consistently?
- 02What progress has been made with the manager's CQC registration since this inspection?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient, including when people need one-to-one support?
- 04What evidence can you show that the new audits and quality checks are still identifying and fixing problems?
- 05How are residents involved in choosing activities, preparing food and building independence?
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions, including care and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 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.
Every inspection of Redstone House
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2019
Location report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 May 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.