We carried out a review of the data available to us about Redbond Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Redbond Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People's wellbeing was being supported by visits to the service of family and friends. A visitors pod was in place and in line with the new guidance, the service had extended visiting to enable people to have face to face contact with their loved ones. Additional staff had been made available to facilitate the visits and staff had made efforts to make visitors feel welcome.
Staff employed at the service had received training on infection prevention and the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE). There were clear arrangements at the entrance to the building and at other key areas to minimise the risk of infection.
The was clear signage throughout and PPE equipment was accessible. The service was well maintained and visibly clean. Schedules were in place to show that regular cleaning was undertaken of high touch areas.
One part of the service was not in use at the time of the inspection, but was available should a separate area be required in the event of an outbreak, to reduce the risk of transmission.
The service was following the government guidance on whole home testing for people and staff.
Redbond Lodge is a residential care home registered to provide accommodation for 83 older people who require personal care, some of whom are living with dementia. There were 80 people living at the home on the day of our inspection.
At the last inspection we rated the service good overall with a 'requires improvement' rating in the domain of safe due to insufficient staffing levels. At this inspection we found the service had made the necessary improvements and we found the service good across all five domains.
There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs in a safe and timely manner. Robust systems for the safe recruitment of staff were in place.
People were protected from harm as staff knew how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns. Staff were aware of the risks to people and how to manage them to keep people safe. Risks to people were assessed and management plans were put in place to minimise risk.
Medicines were managed safely by staff who had been trained and assessed as competent to administer medicines and maintain accurate records.
We have made a recommendation about the management of topical creams.
Staff had access to regular training to ensure they developed the skills and knowledge to be competent in their role. Staff were supported through supervision, observations and appraisals to develop professionally.
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.
The service ensured people had enough to eat and drink. People were supported to access healthcare services in a timely way to maintain their health and wellbeing.
Staff listened to people and treated them with kindness and courtesy. Communication between staff and people was friendly and respectful.
The service involved people and their representatives in their care and support planning to ensure that care was provided the way people wanted. Staff knew people well, could describe their routines and preferences and understood how to provide person-centred care.
People had access to a range of activities which reflected their interests and preferences. Consideration was given to people living with dementia with items and activities were available to provide stimulation and engagement.
There were procedures in place to manage any complaints and the service responded to complaints appropriately. The service listened and responded positively to feedback from people, relatives and staff.
There was a longstanding registered manager in post who had developed positive working relationships with external agencies which benefitted the people who used the service. The manager and their deputy were hands-on and visible within the service which promoted a positive culture with the emphasis on teamwork and providing person-centred care.
Quality assurance systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received and identify areas that required improvement.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 03 March 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection of this service took place on 07 February 2014 when no breaches of regulations were found.
Redbond Lodge provides care and accommodation for up to 83 people older people including people living with dementia.
There was a registered manager in place. 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 used the service did not feel safe and secure because there were insufficient staff working on some of the units. We discussed our concerns with the manager and the staffing for the service was increased with immediate effect, by two people for the day shifts and one person for the night shifts.
Call bells were not always answered promptly due to the insufficient staffing levels.
People living at the service, staff and visitors described the management of the service as open and approachable
People had their mental health and physical needs monitored. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. Staff spoken with, were all confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to ensure people were protected. However the staff considered for the service to be safe the service required additional staffing on some units.
The service provided training in the form of an induction to new staff and comprehensive on-going training to existing staff. The senior staff of the service were knowledgeable with regard to Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service had made referrals and worked with the Local authority to support people who used the service with regard to (MCA) and (DoLS)
Most people who used the service were content with the meals and staff supported people with their food and fluid intake. We saw that risk assessments and resulting plans of care had been recorded in the individuals care record.
People who used the service were consulted about the way in which the service should provide activities for people. Some of the communal walls had been decorated with drawings and paintings by the people who lived at the home.
Before moving to the service people took part in an assessment of their needs from which a care plan was written and reviewed regularly.
Staff had worked with people to support them to access and be visited by healthcare professionals when they had been unwell and also to arrange on-going appointments to maintain their well-being when long standing illnesses had been diagnosed.
There were systems in place for replying to people’s concerns. People told us that they were confident in the manager and senior staff who they saw regularly.
We found that people were asked for their consent before care and support was provided. We saw that care plans were comprehensive and ensured that people's needs were identified and met and that any risks they may face were assessed. We saw that staff received the training they needed to support people and carry out their roles safely and effectively.
We saw that medicines were managed safely and that the service was well led.