CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Red House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors checked maintenance risks and infection control, but did not review the whole Safe question. They found that maintenance plans were being followed and that infection control arrangements gave them assurance.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
The Red House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found a safe environment and strong infection control, with the previous overall rating remaining Good.
This was a targeted inspection on 14 December 2020. One inspector checked a specific concern about maintenance and the safety of the home’s environment. The inspector also checked infection prevention and control because of coronavirus.
The home was following its maintenance and repair plan. Recent refurbishment had improved communal areas, a new cooker reduced kitchen risks, and outside lighting had been improved. A damaged radiator cover was made safe promptly.
Inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were in place. These included testing, cleaning, social distancing, shielding and the safe use of protective equipment. They found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concern inspected.
This inspection did not give new ratings. The previous overall rating remained Good, while the Safe question was marked Inspected but not rated because only specific parts were checked.
Maintenance plan
The home was following a maintenance and repair plan. Communal areas had been refurbished, kitchen work was planned, and outside lighting had been improved.
“The service was following its maintenance and repair plan to ensure people were living in a safe and suitable environment.” from the report
Prompt action
When inspectors found a damaged radiator cover, the manager acted promptly to make it safe and arranged for repairs.
“We identified a damaged radiator cover, the manager took prompt action to ensure the cover was made safe” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering testing, protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and infection outbreaks.
“We were assured the service was following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.” from the report
Testing and preparation
The home carried out regular testing and used audits and cleaning to prepare for infection risks during the pandemic.
“Regular audits ensured the service was prepared to continue to meet the challenges of the pandemic and regular cleaning was in place” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Has the planned refurbishment of people’s individual rooms been completed, and how were people supported during the work?
- 02What further refurbishment of the kitchen is planned, and has it now been completed?
- 03How do you check that the maintenance and repair plan remains up to date?
- 04What infection control arrangements are currently in place for testing, visitors, protective equipment and outbreaks?
- 05Has the current manager’s application for CQC registration been completed?
This was a targeted inspection of a specific maintenance concern and infection prevention and control; it did not assess the whole of any key question, so the previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 2021 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, December 2018
The Red House is rated Good; inspectors found safe care and sound management, with some staffing pressures.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 October and 2 November 2018. Inspectors looked at safety and how the home was managed after allegations of abuse were reported. One allegation was part of a criminal investigation, so inspectors did not examine what happened in that incident.
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and that risks such as epilepsy, choking and behaviour were assessed and managed. Medicines records were complete in the records checked. The home was clean and well maintained, and staff recruitment checks were in place.
The home had a registered manager and effective checks on quality, staff practice and safety. Staffing absences were being covered by extra hours and some agency staff. The overall rating stayed Good. The other three question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection because they were not inspected this time.
Safeguarding
Staff and managers understood safeguarding procedures. The home took appropriate action when allegations were made, including referrals to the local authority and police.
“People were protected from harm and abuse through the knowledge of staff and management.” from the report
Risk management
People had plans covering individual risks, including epilepsy, choking and behaviour. Staff understood the behaviour support plans and the techniques to use.
“Risks to people were identified and managed.” from the report
Medicines
The medicines records checked had no gaps. The home also recorded medicines received and disposed of, and carried out regular audits.
“Medicines Administration Records (MAR charts) had been completed appropriately with no gaps in the recording of administration on the MAR charts we examined.” from the report
Management checks
The home had regular audits covering areas such as finances, training, supervision and health and safety. Action plans were used where improvements were needed.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of services and care and support provided to people.” from the report
Staffing pressures
needs fixingAt the inspection, staff absences were being covered by extra hours and some agency staff. Recruitment was still in progress, so ask how this affects continuity and staff tiredness.
“At the time of our inspection visit, absences in the staff team were being managed with staff working extra hours and some use of agency staff.” from the report
- 01How are staff absences and recruitment being managed now, and how often are extra hours or agency staff needed?
- 02What actions were taken after the abuse allegations, and how are people protected from similar risks now?
- 03How are each person's behaviour support plans kept up to date and shared with all staff?
- 04How do you check that medicines remain safe after the medicine error mentioned in the report?
- 05How do you make sure people living together remain compatible and receive the support described in their individual plans?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 September 2016.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.