CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Red House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe staffing, medicines management, infection control, risk assessments and systems for learning from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training, supervision and support. People's health, nutrition, consent and mental capacity were assessed and reviewed, with referrals to health professionals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular checks and audits, and action was taken when shortfalls were found. People, relatives and staff described an open and supportive culture.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 August 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, received suitable care and support, and lived in a service with effective checks and management.
The previous inspection, published in December 2019, rated the home Requires Improvement. The provider had breached rules about safe care, staff supervision and quality monitoring. Inspectors found these improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on each shift. Call bells were answered quickly and staff had time to spend with people.
“There were enough staff on each shift to provide people with the support they needed, when they needed it.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Nurses used a system to reduce interruptions during administration.
“People were supported to have their medicines safely and as prescribed. Medicines were stored, managed and disposed of safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included guidance for people's individual risks and anxieties. Staff were observed offering calm reassurance and support.
“Care plans now included guidance for staff about how best to support the person.” from the report
Good leadership
Regular audits and checks were in place. Managers acted when problems were found and worked with staff to improve the service.
“Systems to drive improvements of the quality and safety of the service had been embedded.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were offered choices about their daily lives and could see friends and family when they wished.
“People were empowered to remain in control of their care and were provided with support to do this.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Which areas were not inspected during this visit, and what are their current ratings?
- 02How do you check that the improvements to care plans and risk assessments are kept up to date?
- 03How often are staff supervision meetings and annual appraisals completed now?
- 04How are relatives told about changes in a person's health or care?
- 05How do you use audits and incident reviews to make further improvements?
This inspection checked Safe, Effective and Well-led and used previous ratings for any key questions that were not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 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, December 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but continuing safety, staffing and management problems increased the risk of harm.
Inspectors visited on 10 and 15 October 2019. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was caring and responsive. People were treated with dignity, involved in everyday choices and supported with personalised care, activities and healthcare. Medicines, infection control, staffing levels and complaints handling were also found to be satisfactory.
However, four regulations were breached. Risks such as choking, constipation and distress were not always assessed clearly. Some staff lacked regular supervision, records were out of date, mental capacity assessments were not always current, and quality checks had not found all the problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement for the second time. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The provider had started using consultants and new checks, but inspectors said improvements had not yet been embedded or sustained.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, friendly and reassuring. Inspectors saw respectful, unhurried interactions and support for people's independence.
“Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs, preferences and how staff should support them. Staff knew people well and adapted care to individual wishes.
“People received personalised, individual care in line with their different needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
Activities were adapted for people with changing mobility and included individual time, trips, entertainment and religious support. Relatives were included in some outings.
“The activities person spent individual time with people in their rooms if they were unable to come to the communal areas.” from the report
Medicines and cleanliness
Inspectors found medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. The home was clean and staff used infection control equipment.
“Medicines were stored safely and in line with legal requirements.” from the report
Incomplete risk guidance
seriousRisk assessments did not always explain the individual action staff should take if someone choked, became constipated or became distressed. This could lead to inconsistent or unsafe support.
“There was a risk that people may not receive the individual assistance they needed if this risk occurred.” from the report
Staff supervision
seriousSome staff had not had supervision for over a year, and nurses had no clinical supervision. This meant staff were not fully supported to discuss concerns or keep their practice safe and current.
“Some staff had not received any supervision in over a year and other staff had not received regular supervision.” from the report
Mental capacity records
seriousSome capacity assessments had not been updated even though staff and relatives said people's ability to make decisions had changed. This raised concerns about whether decisions were being made lawfully and in people's best interests.
“Some of the capacity assessments had not been updated.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe home had no registered manager for six months. New quality checks had been introduced, but they had not yet found all the problems or shown that improvements would last.
“They had not identified the breaches found at the inspection.” from the report
Records not always current
needs fixingRisk assessments and mental capacity assessments were not always up to date. This could make it harder for staff to provide consistent care.
“Records, such as risk assessments and mental capacity assessments were not up to date.” from the report
- 01What individual guidance is now in place for people at risk of choking, constipation or becoming distressed?
- 02How often do staff and nurses receive supervision, and can you show that this is now up to date?
- 03Have all mental capacity assessments been reviewed when people's ability to make decisions has changed?
- 04Who is currently managing the home, and has a registered manager now been appointed?
- 05How do your quality checks now identify and follow up risks, record problems and confirm that improvements are sustained?
This was a planned inspection covering the care, premises and all five CQC questions, following the home's previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 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 The Red House Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 June 2018.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.