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
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with enough staff, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines arrangements. A missing protocol for one newly prescribed as-required controlled medicine was introduced immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous comprehensive inspection rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous comprehensive inspection rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous comprehensive inspection rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had monitoring, feedback and learning systems to support care quality. There was no registered manager in post at the time, although an experienced manager was expected to start.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, with one medicines protocol fixed during the inspection.
This was a focused inspection on 27 April 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, following concerns about visiting, infection control and managing health risks. They spoke with one person, six relatives and nine staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, prompt responses to call bells, safe medicines practice and effective infection control. Risks were assessed and care plans explained how staff should support people. Relatives said they felt reassured and well informed.
The home had systems for checking care quality, learning from incidents and using feedback to make improvements. One missing protocol for newly prescribed as-required controlled medicine was put in place immediately when inspectors raised it. The overall rating was Good, as were Safe and Well-led. The other three question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills and experience. Call bells were answered promptly.
“There were enough staff with the right mix of skills, training and experience to support people safely.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements for visitors, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Good communication
Relatives said they were kept informed about their relatives' health, wellbeing and safety, including Covid-19 arrangements.
“Relatives spoken with told us that communication was good and they were kept informed about their loved ones.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The home reviewed incidents, gathered feedback and used action plans to improve activities, health reviews and staff skills.
“Systems for auditing and quality assurance meant that the quality and safety of care delivered was regularly monitored and reviewed to drive improvements and create a culture of continuous learning.” from the report
Registered manager gap
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. The report said an experienced manager was expected to start in a couple of months.
“At the time of inspection there was no registered manager in post and the service was being supported, full time, by the nominated individual.” from the report
Missing medicines protocol
needs fixingOne person had newly prescribed as-required controlled medicine without a required protocol. The manager acted immediately and put the protocol in place.
“Some people needed 'as required' medication but we found no protocol for one person who was prescribed a controlled medication on an as required basis.” from the report
- 01Is the manager now registered with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home until that is complete?
- 02How is the new protocol for as-required controlled medicines checked to make sure it is followed?
- 03How are visiting arrangements and infection control kept up to date when guidance changes?
- 04What refurbishment work was identified, and has it now been completed?
- 05How are relatives' feedback and action plans turned into checked improvements?
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 13 May 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, November 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, and concerns raised before the inspection were not substantiated.
This was an unannounced, responsive comprehensive inspection on 19 October 2017. It was carried out because CQC had received concerns about risks, meals, dignity and family communication. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, observed care and mealtimes, and checked care records and quality checks.
The concerns were not substantiated. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable risks. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and care plans covered people's health, nutrition, preferences and risks.
People were treated kindly and with dignity. Families were involved in care planning and were kept informed about changes. The home offered activities and support to use the local community, and the management team checked the quality of care.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same as the previous inspection in July 2016.
Individual risk management
Care plans explained people's risks, the equipment and staffing needed, and the actions staff should take. Relatives said staff understood risks linked to mobility, nutrition and wellbeing.
“Care plans included risk assessments related to people's individual and diverse needs and abilities.” from the report
Food and nutrition
Menus offered choices and were adjusted to people's needs and preferences. Staff supported people at mealtimes and sought professional advice when nutrition was a concern.
“People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet that met their needs and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind, considerate and respectful. Inspectors saw staff offering personal care discreetly and supporting people's dignity.
“People were treated with kindness by staff who knew them well and understood them.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives were involved in care planning and were told about changes in people's needs. The home kept records of contact with relatives and the information shared.
“People's care plans included a contact list, which recorded when people's relatives were contacted and the information that was shared with them.” from the report
Quality checks
Managers reviewed accidents, falls, medicines, care plans, equipment and the premises. The provider's area manager also checked that records accurately reflected the service.
“The registered manager analysed accidents, incidents and falls and took action to minimise risks of a reoccurrence.” from the report
Low questionnaire response
minorThe most recent survey received little response from relatives. The registered manager planned to introduce an easier-to-read questionnaire to encourage more people to share their views.
“The most recent survey demonstrated that relatives did not feel the need to respond to written questionnaires and the people who responded were happy with the service.” from the report
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks, including risks linked to mobility, nutrition and wellbeing?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's food choices, allergies and dietary needs are followed?
- 03How will you keep me informed if my relative's needs or abilities change?
- 04How will you support my relative to take part in activities, socialise and go out if they wish?
- 05How can families give feedback, especially if they find written questionnaires difficult to complete?
This was an unannounced responsive comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, carried out after concerns were received; the Good ratings remained unchanged from July 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 2017 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 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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 Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.