CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Red House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some safety checks and cleaning were not reliable. Inspectors found problems with hot water temperatures, fire prevention, mould and a stained carpet, although the provider acted on the concerns raised.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The principles of the Mental Capacity Act were not always followed when people were charged for the care home vehicle. Care planning, staff training, meals and access to health care were otherwise described positively.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was not stated in the supplied report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was not stated in the supplied report.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality monitoring and governance did not reliably identify or resolve safety problems. Inspectors also found that the transport charging policy had not been put into practice.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring support but important safety, consent and management checks were not reliable.
This was a focused inspection carried out over three visits in November 2023. One inspector spoke with people, staff, family members and health and social care professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, staff recruitment records, policies and other records.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Staff generally knew people well, supported their independence and interests, and provided enough trained staff. Medicines, safeguarding, health care and incident reporting were managed well.
However, some parts of the building were unsafe or unhygienic. Checks on hot water, fire safety and cleaning had not worked properly. People were also charged for use of the home vehicle without the required best-interest decisions or clear evidence of consent.
The overall rating changed from Good in 2018 to Requires Improvement. The home must improve its quality monitoring and governance. The CQC will ask for an action plan and monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
Kind and individual support
Staff understood people's individual needs and supported their choices, independence, interests and goals.
“Staff placed people's wishes, needs, and rights at the heart of everything they did.” from the report
Enough trained staff
The home had enough staff with the training and skills needed to support people safely.
“People were supported by enough staff who had the necessary training and skills.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were administered, recorded and stored safely, with staff competency checked.
“People were supported by staff who followed the provider's systems and processes to administer, record, and store medicines safely.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with health and social care services and supported people to attend health checks and specialist services.
“The service worked well in partnership with community health and social care organisations, which helped improve the wellbeing of the people who used the service.” from the report
Unsafe building checks
seriousHot water checks were not carried out correctly, and fire prevention work identified as serious had not been completed. These problems increased the potential risk of harm.
“The provider had not implemented some required fire prevention measures.” from the report
Poor cleanliness
needs fixingInspectors found significant black mould in an ensuite shower room and a heavily stained, unhygienic bedroom carpet.
“People lived in an environment which was not always clean and hygienic.” from the report
Unclear vehicle charges
seriousPeople were charged weekly for the home vehicle without evidence of consent or best-interest decisions. Some people paid even when the vehicle was not available for their use.
“People were therefore being charged significant amounts by the provider for travel costs which there was no evidence they had consented to.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousAudits did not consistently identify problems or ensure that identified actions were completed. This led to risks not being dealt with promptly.
“The provider failed to establish effective governance processes to assess, monitor, and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety, and welfare of service users.” from the report
- 01What has been done to confirm that hot water temperatures are now checked correctly and safely?
- 02Has all outstanding fire safety work been completed, including the gaps in the service ducting?
- 03Has the black mould been removed and has the stained bedroom carpet been deep cleaned or replaced?
- 04Have transport charges stopped, and how will best-interest decisions and other travel options be considered for each person?
- 05What changes have been made to quality audits so that problems are identified, acted on and checked as completed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 2024 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, March 2018
Rated Good in all areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some paperwork and repair work still being updated.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 February 2018. One inspector spoke with three people living at the home, relatives, staff and a social care professional. They looked at two care records and records about quality checks, infection control and feedback.
The inspectors found that people were safe and that medicines, staffing, risk assessments and infection control were managed well. Staff had suitable training and people were supported with health needs, meals, activities and making choices.
People had positive relationships with staff, who respected their privacy and encouraged independence. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. The home had a friendly atmosphere and managers used audits and people's views to make improvements.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found no serious risks or concerns and that the previous Good rating remained supported by the evidence.
Consistent staffing
People and relatives said staff knew them well and there had been no new recruits since the previous inspection. The report found staffing levels met people's needs.
“There was a static group of staff and we noted there had been no new recruits since our last inspection.” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose activities, took on household tasks and were supported to develop work and life skills. Staff encouraged people to make decisions and live as independently as possible.
“People's independence was encouraged and promoted.” from the report
Kind and respectful relationships
Inspectors saw friendly relationships between people and staff. Staff understood people's anxieties, respected personal space and adapted their communication.
“Throughout the inspection visit we saw the relationship between people and the staff.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home made changes after a sickness outbreak and had an infection containment box ready for future illness. It also acted after a person had fallen.
“This shows that lessons were learnt when incidents occurred.” from the report
Paperwork still being updated
minorAn audit found that updating paperwork was the one area not scored at 100%. The report says this work had already started, but families may want to ask whether it is now complete.
“The outstanding aspects related to updating paperwork which we saw had already commenced.” from the report
Repairs and refurbishment
minorThe improvement plan included repairs to reception flooring and redecoration. A cracked sink in the staff toilet had been added to the repairs schedule, so families may wish to ask about progress.
“There was an improvement plan for the home.” from the report
- 01Has all the care plan paperwork been updated since the inspection, and how often is each plan now reviewed?
- 02Have the repairs to the reception flooring, redecoration and the cracked staff toilet sink been completed?
- 03How will you support my relative with their preferred activities, work or life-skill goals?
- 04If my relative needs help making a decision, how will you involve them, family members, advocates and health professionals?
- 05What arrangements would be used if there were another sickness outbreak or an emergency evacuation?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality areas and the overall rating; the report says the previous Good rating remained unchanged, but one section gives the inspection year as 2017 rather than 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2018 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 The Red House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 June 2014.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.