CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Redworth
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable plans for managing risks, safe premises and effective infection control. Medicines were administered and stored safely, but some medicines records were incomplete or unclear.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager carried out regular checks, acted on problems and sought feedback from people, relatives and staff. Staff said they felt supported and understood their roles.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-led care, but medicines records were not always complete.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 15, 16 and 17 November 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and outside professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall, and Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk plans, safe buildings and effective infection control. People said they felt safe and were happy with how staff gave medicines.
There was still a medicines records issue. Instructions for some medicines and creams were not always clear, and some records were missing or incomplete. The manager took action after the inspection, but CQC made a recommendation to review the records.
This focused inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The ratings for the other areas were carried over from the previous inspection. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement because the earlier legal breaches had been addressed.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and support them safely. Recruitment checks, including references and DBS checks, were completed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and support them safely.” from the report
Risk and safeguarding
The home had systems to protect people from abuse and plans to guide staff when people were at risk. Accidents and incidents were reviewed for patterns and lessons.
“The provider had effective systems in place to ensure people's safety.” from the report
Improving management
The manager carried out audits and acted when issues were found. The home had improved from the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of regulations.
“The registered manager conducted regular audits and when issues were identified work was done to rectify them.” from the report
Person-centred care and activities
Care plans recorded people's individual likes and dislikes. Inspectors found a range of activities to help people have an enjoyable life at the home.
“Activities staff had made great efforts to ensure people were able to have a full and enjoyable life whilst at Redworth.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingRecords were not always completed correctly. Instructions for some medicines taken when needed, variable doses and creams were not always detailed or clear, and some records were missing. The manager took action after the inspection, and CQC recommended a further review.
“Guidance was not always clear for how often creams should be applied and some records were missing.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicines records since the inspection?
- 02How do you record and check medicines given when needed or at a variable dose?
- 03How do you record when creams are applied, and who checks that these records are complete?
- 04What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were carried forward at this inspection?
- 05How do you check that improvements made after the previous inspection are being maintained?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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, August 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in care records, medicines, infection control and management, although staffing and some communication were positive.
This was a focused inspection after concerns about people's health needs, records and quality checks. Inspectors visited the home on 28 July 2020 and spoke by telephone with relatives, staff and professionals over the following two days. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was not always keeping people safe. Care plans and risk assessments were not always current, changes in health were not always acted on quickly, and medicines were not always given at the right time or as prescribed. Staff did not always follow infection control guidance, including handwashing and wearing protective equipment.
The home's checks had not found these problems. Inspectors also found that concerns and complaints were not always acted on. There were positive findings, including suitable staffing levels, safe recruitment, safe maintenance systems and positive feedback from relatives.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other question ratings were carried forward from the earlier comprehensive inspection.
Staffing and recruitment
Staffing levels appeared suitable for people's needs, and the home had safe recruitment procedures.
“Staffing levels appeared to be suitable and the provider reviewed these according to the needs of people” from the report
Safe environment
The home had suitable checks and maintenance systems to keep the building and equipment safe.
“The home had appropriate checks and maintenance systems in place to ensure the environment and equipment was safe for people living at the service.” from the report
Communication with relatives
Relatives said they were kept informed about their family members' health and care, including during the coronavirus restrictions.
“Relatives told us during this time communication with them was good and they had been kept informed about their relative's health and care.” from the report
Medicine storage
Medicines were received, stored and disposed of safely, and guidance was available for medicines prescribed when needed.
“Medicines were received, stored and disposed of safely.” from the report
Care records and changing health needs
seriousRecords did not always reflect people's current needs. Staff did not always recognise or respond promptly when health needs changed, creating a risk of harm.
“People were not always protected from the risk of harm due to care records not being kept up to date.” from the report
Medicines
seriousSome medicines were not given at the exact prescribed time. Staff did not always follow the medicines policy, and one person's patch records were not up to date.
“Medicines which are required to be administered at an exact time for people who were living with Parkinson's disease were not being administered as prescribed.” from the report
Infection control
seriousStaff did not always follow handwashing and protective equipment guidance. This exposed people to a risk of infection.
“Staff were observed to not always be following the correct handwashing procedures and wearing the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).” from the report
Management oversight
seriousThe home's audits failed to identify several problems. Records were not always accurate or up to date, and concerns and complaints were not consistently acted on.
“Quality monitoring and audits of the service were in place. However, these had failed to identify the issues found during this inspection” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to keep care plans and risk assessments accurate and up to date?
- 02How do you now make sure time-critical medicines are given at the prescribed time?
- 03How do you check that staff follow handwashing and protective equipment procedures every day?
- 04How are concerns, complaints and instructions from external professionals recorded, followed up and shared with staff?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan, and what evidence can you show that the improvements are working?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 August 2020 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 Redworth
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.