Redwood House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations. People’s care plans were not always reflective of their needs and preferences. However, their independence was promoted. People’s experiences of being involved in activities was positive overall. People were able to maintain relationships and receive visitors without restriction. Staff told us they felt supported.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

A person confirmed that they felt staff treated them kindly and told us, “Staff are professional. They work well with (people) and work well with other staff.” A relative said, “I see my [relative] every couple of months. [Person] is very happy.”

Staff gave us examples of how they promoted people's privacy and dignity, such as knocking on bedroom doors before entering to support them and only providing support when needed, such as helping people with specific parts of their hygiene routine and leaving to let people manage other aspects independently.

During our visits, we observed that staff interacted with people with kindness and respect.

A relative told us, “They care so well for [Person] and treat [Person] as an individual.” People also added personal touches to their bedrooms. For example, one person decorated their room in line with their favourite football team, and another made their own door sign.

There was conflicting feedback from staff about supporting and meeting people's cultural and religious dietary requirements. The registered manager explained that they had met with a relative to discuss the purchase, storage and preparation of food in line with a person's cultural and religious requirements. Further, they showed us a document that they and the relative had signed and agreed it was important the person received this type of food. However, another staff member told us that this person and another person sometimes ate foods that differed from their documented religious and cultural needs and felt they did not have capacity to make decisions related to choosing foods in line with cultural and religious requirements. This meant staff did not consistently support people in line with their needs or preferences.

Staff did not always understand what foods met a person's stated religious requirements. For example, when we asked a staff member to show us a pictorial menu for a person who did not eat particular foods due to religious reasons, they showed us pictures of four dishes that can be associated with where the person was born rather than recognising that a diverse range of foods met the person’s requirements. However, we observed staff interacting with people in line with their interests, for example, discussing football and favourite music.

At our last inspection, the provider failed to fully meet people's cultural dietary needs, and staff lacked awareness in this area. During this assessment, we found continued concerns in this area. People's cultural and religious dietary needs were stated in care plans. However, this did not always reflect the support they received. 2 people's care plans stated they did not eat particular foods for religious reasons; however, their daily records showed, and a staff member confirmed they had received foods that went against these religious requirements. Feedback received from staff was unclear as to whether dietary restrictions were people's choice or relatives' preferences. This meant care plans were not always accurate, current and reflective of people's needs and preferences. People's capacity had not been assessed in this area which placed them at increased risk of experiencing restrictions on what they ate.

Redwood House supported people with diverse dietary needs who used visual aids to support communication. However, the pictorial menus were limited. This increased the risk of people experiencing dietary restrictions. A person's end-of-life plan did not reflect their preferences or evidence they had been consulted with. Another person’s care plan did not contain any information about how staff should ensure they were given regular opportunities to take part in activities and reflect they did not often take part due to being in pain. However, the told us they preferred to spend time in their room and could ask staff when they wanted to go out or participate in activities. Other people told us they had regular opportunities to pursue activities that interested them. For example, one person told us they regularly went to a drop-in centre where a disco was held, and they could access a sensory room. People told us they had regular opportunities to see their relatives. Relatives also told us they did not experience any restrictions on visiting people.

In response to our findings about a person's daily records not showing they had regular opportunities to participate in activities, the registered manager told us their records may not always reflect planned activities they declined to participate in. As a result of our findings, the registered manager showed us that they had reviewed and updated the templates used by staff to document the person's daily activities. We will check for sustained improvements in this area at our next assessment. However, staff told us they regularly supported people with activities both community-based and at home. A staff member said, "I make sure I give people choices, for example, food choices and ensure there are alternatives. Same with activities, personal care and choosing clothes." Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about where people needed help and what they could do for themselves.

During our visits, we observed a range of activities took place, including tabletop games, people visiting the local shops, gym and a seaside trip. People’s independence was promoted; we observed people making themselves meals, doing laundry, and helping to clean the home.

A person’s daily records did not indicate that they were given regular opportunities to participate in activities. Their care plans did not reflect that they preferred not to participate in activities often due to their mobility needs. This increased risks relating to their well-being and social needs. In response to our findings, the registered manager reviewed and updated templates used by staff to document daily activities. However, other people’s daily records showed they had consistent support for participating in activities they enjoyed. Care plans stated what people could do for themselves and where staff needed to provide additional support, this promoted independence. A person’s care plan contained keywords and phrases they used because they spoke another language, this promoted their communication needs being met.

Staff understood their roles in responding to people’s immediate care needs. For example, a staff member told us it was important to limit a person eating sugary foods due to them living with diabetes. Records showed staff had sought medical advice appropriately too. For example, after someone fell and injured themselves there were supported to the hospital.

We observed that staff recognised that our visit would cause an individual discomfort as it took them time to get to know and be comfortable with new people. As a result, they advocated on the person’s behalf by making us aware of their boundaries and reassuring them that we would respect these during our visit. People’s care plans anticipated things people struggled with and may cause people emotional distress and how staff should support people at these times.

Staff told us they felt supported by managers and the provider. A staff member said, “We have management that is really good and supportive, always encouraging us.”

Records showed staff had regular opportunities to attend team meetings. Staff confirmed they received regular supervision. Information was on display about how and where staff could anonymously raise concerns if needed.