CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The RedHouse Care Home
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, September 2020
The RedHouse Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and stronger management after the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was a focused inspection on 9 September 2020. One inspector reviewed records, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and observed care. The inspection checked whether improvements promised after the previous report had been made.
The home was found to be safe and well managed. Medicines, staffing, risk assessments, infection control and accident reviews had improved. People had personalised care plans, meaningful activities and support to stay in touch with family and friends.
The overall rating is Good. The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement in 2019, with breaches linked to personalised care and good governance. Inspectors found these improvements had been put in place and the home was no longer in breach.
Safe medicines
Medicine risk assessments, care plans and weekly audits had been introduced and were being used consistently. Inspectors found that people received their medicines as prescribed.
“These systems had been embedded and enabled staff to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, induction and relevant training were in place.
“There were enough staff to provide people with the personalised care and support they needed.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered a varied programme shaped by people's interests. Staff supported people to keep in touch with relatives and friends during the pandemic.
“People had been supported to keep in touch with their family and friends throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home had daily, weekly, monthly and annual checks. Managers used audits and reviews to identify problems and make improvements.
“There were well established and effective governance systems to support the service to continually improve.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. Staff knew people's histories and used this information in their care.
“People's care records were detailed about their individual needs and preferences, and were regularly reviewed and updated as their needs changed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are medicine audits completed now, and what happens if an error or concern is found?
- 02What activities are available when people cannot go out or when relatives cannot visit?
- 03How are people's views used to change activities, care plans and the home environment?
- 04What end-of-life care training has staff completed, and when will the planned further training begin?
- 05Which ratings for Effective and Caring came from the previous comprehensive inspection, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
This was a focused inspection to check improvements after the previous report; Safe and Well-led were examined, Responsive was marked as not inspected, and the report says some ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 September 2020 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, August 2019
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and better-supported care, but concerns about activities, medicines information and how improvements were checked.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 17 June 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, complaints and quality checks.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Staffing and recruitment were safer, staff training had improved, and people generally received kind and respectful care. Support with food, healthcare and decision-making was also good.
However, people did not always have enough meaningful activities. Some care plans did not give enough information to support safe medicines use. The systems used to find and fix problems were not always effective. These issues led to two legal breaches.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were rated Good. Safe, Responsive and Well-led remained Requires Improvement. This was the home's fourth consecutive Requires Improvement rating.
Improved staffing
The home had safer recruitment processes and enough suitably skilled staff to meet people's needs. Staffing levels had increased since the previous inspection.
“Sufficient numbers of suitably skilled, and qualified staff, were available to meet people's needs at all times.” from the report
Staff training
Staff completed a thorough induction and received training, supervision and competency checks. This was an improvement on the previous inspection.
“Staff received training and underwent regular competency assessments to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and respect. People and relatives described staff as caring and supportive.
“People were supported by staff who understood the importance of respecting their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Food and healthcare
Meals were well supported and people had choices. Staff worked effectively with healthcare professionals to meet people's health needs.
“The meal time experience was relaxed, and we saw people were encouraged to be involved in preparing their food.” from the report
Too few activities
needs fixingActivities were still lacking despite an earlier recommendation. People were sometimes isolated or left without meaningful stimulation.
“People were often isolated in their bedrooms without regular contact and people in the lounge area were not provided with meaningful stimulation.” from the report
Medicines information
seriousSome care plans did not give staff enough information about emergency medicines or when to seek further healthcare. Inspectors also found possible problems with storage temperatures and covert medicines.
“Care plans for five people did not contain enough information for staff to administer emergency medicines safely or indicate when they should seek further health care support.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits and quality reports did not always set out the actions needed. Governance checks did not always identify medicines problems or ensure activities improved.
“Governance systems were not always effective in identifying areas for improvement in respect of the management of medicines.” from the report
No registered manager
minorAt the inspection, the home did not have a registered manager with CQC. A new manager had applied to become registered.
“The service did not have a registered manager with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01What daily activities are now available, and how do you make sure people who stay in their rooms receive regular contact and stimulation?
- 02How are medicines care plans checked to ensure emergency instructions and advice about seeking healthcare are complete?
- 03How do you check that medicines are stored at the correct temperature and that covert medicines remain effective?
- 04What actions did you send to CQC after the two breaches, and what evidence can you show that they have been completed?
- 05Has the manager's application to become the registered manager been completed?
This was a planned, unannounced full inspection that looked at the overall service, including care, accommodation, records, medicines, staffing and all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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 RedHouse Care Home
6 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 September 2012.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.