Archived: Redwell Hills Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

• All staff and visitors had to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), complete a health declaration form, NHS Track and Trace information and had their temperature checked prior to entering the home. Additional cleaning of all areas and frequent touch surfaces was being carried out and recorded by housekeeping staff.

• Staff supported people’s social and emotional wellbeing. The service had used different methods including information technology to assist communication with staff wearing face masks. The provider and staff kept family members up to date about the latest guidance and their relative’s health via regular telephone calls, letters and social media.

• All staff, including catering and housekeeping staff had undertaken additional training in infection prevention and control. This included putting on and taking off PPE, hand hygiene and other Covid-19 related training.

• The manager explained the quality systems they had in place to check the service was providing safe care. There was a robust communication system on place to ensure staff received consistent updates in relation to infection control policy and practice.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Redwell Hills is a residential care home which provides older people with nursing and personal care. The home can accommodate up to 50 people. On the day of our inspection visit, 35 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and their relatives told us the care was safe and they were happy at the service. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People were protected from abuse by staff who understood how to identify and report concerns. Risk assessments were in place to ensure staff knew how to keep people safe. Medicines were well managed and administered to people in a timely way.

Senior staff carried out detailed assessments of need to ensure the home could effectively support any new admissions. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and staff were trained to support people who had different dietary needs. Staff told us they were well trained and they were well supported and supervised by the management team. The service worked well with community healthcare partners such as the district nursing service to ensure people received healthcare support where needed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Interactions between people and the staff team were positive and relatives also said they were made very welcome at the home. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs and preferences. People were supported to engage in activities to reduce their risk of social isolation. People were supported to express their spirituality, with whatever religion they chose to follow. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint, and those people we spoke with said they had opportunity, through regular meetings, to raise any issues they had.

There was a clear management structure and staff were supported by the registered manager. People's feedback was sought regularly and acted upon. We received positive feedback about how the service was managed. Quality assurance systems were completed. Team meetings were held regularly to pass on key information and involve staff in the running of the home.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Redwell Hills on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.w

We previously inspected Redwell Hills Care Home in July 2015, at which time the service was compliant with all regulatory standards and was rated Good. At this inspection the service remained Good.

Redwell Hills is a care home in Leadgate, Consett, providing accommodation and nursing care for up to 51 older people who require nursing and personal care. There were 35 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 were protected against a range of risks by risk assessments and care plans that were regularly reviewed. Risks were considered with the input of external professionals where appropriate.

People we spoke with and relatives agreed staff faced a challenging workload, but there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

Pre-employment checks ensured the service did not employ people who were unsuitable to work with potentially vulnerable people.

Staff were trained in areas such as dementia awareness, moving and handling, safeguarding, health and safety, infection control, mental capacity and food hygiene. Training needs were monitored and managed well at location and provider level.

Infection control procedures were in place and we found all aspects of the home to be clean and well maintained.

Staff received consistent support through supervision and appraisal meetings, as well as group supervisions and staff meetings.

The management, administration, storage and disposal of medicines was carried out in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] guidelines.

People healthcare needs were well managed with the support of external healthcare professionals where necessary.

All people who used the service we spoke with, relatives and visiting healthcare professionals agreed staff were caring in their interactions with people and we saw evidence of this during our inspection.

The registered manager was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decision making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met by kitchen staff who had up to date information about their preferences and specialised diets. We observed calm and unhurried mealtimes, with people able to choose alternative options and staff attentive to their needs.

Care plans were sufficiently detailed and staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s needs, likes and dislikes. The registered manager was in the process of introducing additional one-page profiles to ensure new staff had readily accessible person-centred information.

The service had an activities co-ordinator in place and there were a range of group activities on offer. At times the activities co-ordinator did not have sufficient time to ensure people who chose not to engage in group activities were able to engage in activities meaningful to them.

The service had a range of quality assurance and auditing processes in place to continually review service provisions. Relevant policies and procedures were in place and regularly reviewed.

People who used the service, relatives and staff were positive about the impact the registered manager had made and expressed confidence in their abilities. We found they had successfully developed a culture that was focussed on people feeling at home whilst receiving good standards of care.

During our inspection of 23rd April 2013 we found people were not fully protected or consulted about their care. This was because behaviour interventions plans had not been completed to keep people and staff safe from harm. We found people's care plans and risk assessments showed no evidence that people or their representatives had been involved in the planning and delivery of their care.

Following this inspection we asked the provider to send us an action plan detailing how improvements would be made. The action plan we received told us there were procedures in place to review all people's care and support plans. All people who used the service or their representatives would be involved with the review, planning and decision making of their care and support needs. In addition, all people's risk assessments and behaviour interventions plans would be reviewed and agreed with people, or where necessary other professionals involved and their representatives.

During this inspection we found people's personal records including risk assessments and personal intervention plans were accurate. We saw people who used the service had been involved and their consent had been sought. Where people lacked capacity, we saw the provider had involved others who had sufficient knowledge about the person's care, treatment and support needs to make a decision on their behalf. This meant the provider's record keeping was up to date and protected people's safety and wellbeing.

Each person had an assessment of their social needs that gave details of their background, lifestyle, routines and interests. The information was used to implement individual care plans. Wherever possible staff supported individual needs and requests for one-to-one activities and outings.

We identified some gaps in the provider's record keeping. These could potentially lead to peoples care and support needs being compromised and not fully met.

People who used the service told us they choose whom they wished to see and where to receive visitors. Contact with friends and family was supported through visits, telephone calls and letters/cards.

Three visitors said they are always kept up to date with important issues affecting their relative.

People told us that they were encouraged to make choices and decisions for themselves.