CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Red House Welfare & Housing Society
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved systems for managing risks, medicines, staffing and infection control. People said they felt safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Leadership and management systems had improved, but audits had not always identified and addressed gaps in records and recording.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safer systems and kind care, but oversight still requires improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 April and 16 May 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home had improved since the previous two inspections. Risks were better managed, medicines were handled safely, staffing checks had improved and people said they felt safe. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good.
The well-led rating remained Requires Improvement. New monitoring systems were in place, but they did not always find gaps in records and recording. The home needed more time to make these improvements consistent.
Improved safety systems
Environmental hazards had been removed and systems were in place to manage health and safety risks.
“New equipment was in use, hazards had been removed and systems to ensure any safety concerns were now in place.” from the report
Safer medicines
The home had improved the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines. Staff gave medicines in a way that suited each person.
“There were now safe systems in place for the receipt, storage, administration, and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Safe recruitment and staffing
Required recruitment checks had been completed before new staff started. Inspectors found staffing arrangements were suitable for people's assessed needs.
“Records confirmed a range of checks including references, disclosure, and barring checks (DBS) had been requested and obtained prior to new staff commencing work in the service.” from the report
Positive relationships
People, relatives and staff gave mostly positive feedback. Inspectors saw a welcoming and friendly culture.
“We found a welcoming and friendly culture at the home.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingThe monitoring systems were still being developed. They did not always identify gaps in records and recording, so improvements were not yet fully consistent.
“The management audits and oversight had not always identified and addressed gaps in records and recording.” from the report
Manager visibility
minorOne relative did not know who the registered manager was. Inspectors questioned how visible the manager was in the home.
“One relative told us they did not know who the registered manager was, we also noted that the registered manager was based from an office in the home's attic.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that gaps in care records and recording are now found and corrected?
- 02How often do managers review the new quality and safety audits?
- 03How visible and available is the registered manager to residents and relatives each day?
- 04What changes were made after the previous enforcement action, and how do you know they are working?
- 05How will you keep the improvements consistent as the new management systems become established?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings used in the overall rating came from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 2023 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 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but risks, medicines records, recruitment and management checks were not reliably controlled.
This was a planned, focused inspection on 19 October 2022. Two inspectors visited without notice. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines and management records. An Expert by Experience also telephoned people and relatives.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found environmental hazards, infection control problems, unsafe recruitment checks and medicine records that did not match stock. They also found that the home's checks had not identified these problems.
There were also positive findings. People said they felt safe, staff were kind and caring, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The registered manager was open about problems and was taking action after the inspection.
The home had remained in breach of regulations since the previous inspection in December 2019. CQC will monitor progress, meet with the provider and work with the local authority.
Kind and caring staff
Inspectors saw staff being kind, caring and offering people choices. Relatives described the atmosphere as happy and friendly.
“We observed staff interacting with people and found they were kind and caring and offered people choices.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. People could call for help when needed.
“we found there were enough staff available to meet people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
Open management
The manager was described as open about problems and responsive to feedback. People and relatives were told when things went wrong.
“Throughout the inspection, the registered manager displayed a candid and transparent approach.” from the report
Support for choice
Inspectors found that staff supported people to make choices and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousInspectors found open staircases, damaged flooring, trip hazards and rusty equipment. These risks had not been properly assessed or controlled.
“Environmental risks including potential risks to people's safety were not always picked up and appropriate action taken” from the report
Unsafe recruitment checks
seriousSome employment histories and gaps had not been checked, and risk assessments were not always completed after positive DBS checks. This could leave people at risk of care from unsuitable staff.
“Unsafe recruitment practices which put people at risk of harm was a breach of regulation 19” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicine quantities did not match the records. The manager later found an electronic records error, but the problem had not been identified independently during normal checks.
“We found multiple discrepancies in records against quantities of medicines available at the care home.” from the report
Infection control
seriousBathrooms and other areas contained rusty equipment, damaged flooring, mould and limescale. Inspectors were not assured that these areas could be cleaned effectively.
“There were infection control issues which had not been identified and mitigated within the care home.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's audits did not identify several safety, recruitment, medicines and equipment problems. This meant there was not enough assurance that risks were being managed.
“Effective quality assurance systems were not in place to mitigate risk of potential harm to people.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make the open staircases, damaged flooring, trip hazards and rusty equipment safe?
- 02How are you now checking medicine stocks against electronic records, and how often is this independently reviewed?
- 03Have all staff files been checked for full employment histories, gaps and any required DBS risk assessments?
- 04What changes have been made to clean or replace the rusty, damaged or mould-affected equipment and areas?
- 05How will the provider's audits now identify safety, recruitment, medicines and equipment problems before they affect residents?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key-question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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.
Every inspection of The Red House Welfare & Housing Society
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Red House Welfare & Housing Society →
- December 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Red House Welfare & Housing Society →
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 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.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.