Archived: Redcotts

Updated 18 March 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 15 and 16 February 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team was made up of one inspector.

Before the inspection we looked at information about the home that we had. This included previous inspection reports, correspondence, notifications and returns made to us by the provider.

During the inspection we spoke with three people living in the home and two relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager and two members of staff.

We looked at the homes policies and procedures, four care records, four medicines administration records and two staff records.

We observed the care practice at the home, tracked the care provided to people by reviewing their records and interviewing staff.

Updated 18 March 2016

We carried out an inspection of Redcotts care home on 15 and 16 February 2016. The inspection was unannounced. At the previous inspection of 23 May 2014 the home had met all the standards.

Redcotts is a home for up to 18 older people, including people who have dementia. At the time of inspection there were 12 people living at the home. The home has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who lived at the home were protected from the risk of abuse happening to them. People told us they felt safe and well cared for at the service and they would not be afraid to speak with someone if they had any concerns about their safety or wellbeing. Risk management plans clearly identified what the risk was and provided staff with instructions about how they needed to manage the risk to ensure people received safe care and support whilst enabling them to remain as independent as possible.

There were enough staff on duty to care for people, with a minimum of two care staff per shift during the day and two waking staff at night. Staff had been trained to use specialised equipment, such as hoists, safely.

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. Staff were able to demonstrate good knowledge of people’s needs when they spoke about them and provided care in a safe and caring manner. Staff told us that the aim of the home was to treat people with respect and to care for them as they would a relative of their own. This philosophy was also reflected in the home’s policies and procedures and formed the basis for staff training.

The provider ensured that people’s independence and choice was promoted. People told us that they had been involved in making decisions and there was good communication between staff and themselves. They also confirmed that their consent was asked for before doing anything, such as going somewhere, or receiving medicines.

We saw that people’s health, nutrition, fluids and weight were regularly monitored. There were well established links with GP services offering a single point of access for people.

People told us that the staff were kind and caring towards them. Care records were individual to each person and contained information about people’s life history, their likes and dislikes, cultural and religious preferences. Care records included details such as personal achievements, places visited and family relationships.

We listened to how staff spoke with people and found this was professional, relaxed, and included friendly chit-chat between staff and people who used the service. We saw how people who used the service responded positively to the interaction.

People were able to get up and go to bed at a time that they preferred and were able to enjoy activities and interests that suited them. The home also supported people to maintain relationships with family, relatives and friends.

In order to listen to and learn from people’s experiences the home had an open door policy for relatives and friends as well as occasional meetings where relatives could attend and discuss issues affecting the home and the care provided to people.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to staff supervision and appraisal as well as in relation to systems for quality assuring the care provided at the home.

We saw that staff received supervision but this was intermittent and not regular enough to be effective for staff professional development, with some staff sometimes going several months before a supervision meeting. Annual appraisals, where overall individual performance could be discussed and future goals set were not taking place. We found that quality assurance checks contained insufficient detail as to what was audited, identify shortcomings or how the audits were used to help the provider gain a true understanding of people’s experience of living at the home or evaluate and improve their practice.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.