CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Redwood House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Redwood House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, enough staff and safe visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found daily temperature checks, regular staff testing and correct use of personal protective equipment. The home was clean, had enough staff and supported people in a calm and kind way. People could go out and see relatives safely.
The inspection did not give an overall quality rating. The Safe question was inspected but not rated, and the other four questions were not covered in this visit.
Infection control checks
People's temperatures were checked daily, staff had daily COVID-19 tests and the manager checked PPE stocks weekly.
“The registered manager completed a weekly PPE stock check to ensure they had enough for the staff and people in the home.” from the report
Safe use of PPE
Staff used PPE correctly and had face-to-face training in PPE and infection prevention and control.
“Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly. The registered manager completed a weekly PPE stock check to ensure they had enough for the staff and people in the home.” from the report
Staffing and atmosphere
Inspectors found enough staff and described their support as calm and kind.
“There was enough staff who supported people in a calm and kind way.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to go out and see relatives safely. The report said there were no restrictions on visitors at the time.
“People were supported to go out and to also see their relatives in a safe way.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 or other infections?
- 02How often do you check PPE stocks, and what happens if supplies become low?
- 03How are visitors currently tested, supported and kept safe from infection?
- 04How do you make sure people can continue to see relatives and go out safely?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last updated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the service overall or inspect the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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, April 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks, weak records and limited person-centred support across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 March 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and the registered manager. They reviewed care records, recruitment files, staff competency records, audits and quality reports.
People generally said they liked living at the home and liked some staff. Inspectors also found some positive support with healthcare, outings, complaints and medicines. However, care plans and risk assessments were not always complete, accidents were not always reviewed, and some medicine safety processes were not followed.
The home was clean but looked tired and poorly maintained. Inspectors found limited activities, stimulation and staff engagement, and people were not always supported to develop their interests or goals. All five areas were rated Requires Improvement, and the provider was asked for an action plan.
People generally liked the home
People told inspectors they liked living at the home and liked some of the staff supporting them.
“People told us that they liked living at Redwood House and liked some of the staff who supported them.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People were supported to attend routine health appointments and the home arranged further health input when it was considered necessary.
“We saw examples of people being supported to access health appointments when they needed this or as part of yearly check-ups.” from the report
Some community activities
People described going out for activities including the pub, bowling, the cinema and greyhound racing. A planned football match had also been arranged.
“One person said, "I go out a lot. Greyhound racing on a Tuesday, Wednesday I go to a pub in Luton” from the report
Complaints were addressed
The home had an accessible complaints process, and one relative said an issue had been dealt with quickly.
“A relative told us that an issue they had had been dealt with quickly.” from the report
Incomplete risk management
seriousSome people did not have full risk assessments or care plans. An accident involving a head injury was not followed by the required monitoring, medical advice or learning review.
“Accidents and incidents were not always responded to appropriately.” from the report
Medicine safety checks
needs fixingPeople received medicines as prescribed overall, but an opened cream was not dated and a medicine was given at a different time without checking with the GP that this was safe.
“However, an in use prescribed cream did not have an open date recorded on it.” from the report
Limited staff engagement
needs fixingStaff were often focused on tasks rather than talking with people or checking what they wanted to do. Inspectors also saw a person spending planned one-to-one time without meaningful interaction.
“We observed that, except for the registered manager, that staff did not routinely engage with people.” from the report
Tired and poorly maintained accommodation
needs fixingThe home was clean, but there were broken items, damaged paintwork, worn flooring and rooms with little personal or stimulating content.
“Although the home was clean it looked tired and uncared for.” from the report
Weak oversight and improvement
seriousAudits did not identify all the problems inspectors found. The report also found no effective culture of learning from incidents or previous inspection findings.
“There was not a culture of continuous learning and improving the care people received.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure every person has a complete, current risk assessment and care plan?
- 02How are accidents, falls and other incidents now monitored, reviewed and used to prevent them happening again?
- 03How do you check that medicines are stored, dated and given at the correct prescribed time?
- 04What plans are in place to improve staff engagement, weekend activities and support for each person's interests and goals?
- 05Which repairs and improvements to bedrooms and shared areas have been completed since the report, and what remains outstanding?
This was a scheduled inspection that looked at the overall service and all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home's premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 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 Redwood House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Central Bedfordshire
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 £1,260 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.