Background to this inspection
Updated
22 March 2019
The inspection:
‘We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.’
Inspection team:
The inspection team consisted of one inspector, one Expert by Experience, (ExE) and a Specialist Advisor, (SPA}. An ExE is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. Their area of expertise was dementia care. Our SPA was a pharmacist who reviewed medicines management.
Service and service type:
Redbrick Court is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a manager registered with CQC. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service us run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection:
This inspection was unannounced.
What we did:
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse; and we sought feedback from the local authority and other professionals who work with the service. We assessed the information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.
During the inspection we spoke with fifteen people and three relatives to ask about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with four care staff, two seniors, one domestic staff, the cook, and registered manager. We used the Short Observational Framework for inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
We reviewed four people's care records, six medicine records, two staff files, accidents, incidents and complaints records. We reviewed records relating to the management of the home including audits, staff and resident meetings, questionnaires menus and DoLs approvals. We also conducted a tour of the premises.
Updated
22 March 2019
About the service:
Redbrick Court is a care home that provides personal care for older people, some of whom are living with dementia, and or physical or sensory disabilities. In addition, the home provides respite to people from hospital to aid their recovery. At the time of the inspection, 27 people lived at the service. The home provides a range of communal areas to include; cinema room, sensory room, library area and café.
People’s experience of using this service:
People’s medicines were not always stored safely. Staff had not recognised that some medicines were stored at incorrect temperatures which made them unsafe to use. Expired medicines had not all been returned to the pharmacy and there was insufficient room in the medicine trolleys for people’s medicines to be organised and stored safely.
People and their relatives told us they felt happy and safe. People were satisfied there were enough staff to support them, although occupancy levels were low. Risks to people’s safety and well-being were identified and managed. However, falls analysis needed to improve to further reduce risks. People had a clean and hygienic environment to live in.
People enjoyed the meals and had regular access to drinks. Risks related to nutrition and hydration were monitored to ensure people remained well. People had access to health care support and staff followed recommendations to support people’s health needs. People's capacity was assessed and their consent was obtained before care and support was given. People were supported in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Facilities had been designed to consider people’s specific needs.
People and their relatives described staff as kind and patient. We saw people being treated with respect. People’s dignity and privacy was protected and they had support to maintain and develop their independence.
People’s care was responsive to their needs and people said staff knew their preferences and routines. Care plans were regularly updated to provide guidance to staff on how to meet people’s needs. Complaints were dealt with appropriately to include written outcomes to people. People were encouraged to participate in activities and utilise the facilities available such as the cinema room. The registered manager was looking how they could increase recreational visits outside of the home. Systems and training was in place to support people’s end of life care.
The management team had increased and staff felt positive about the way the service was run. The registered manager divided her time between other locations owned by the provider. Staff felt they would benefit from full-time leadership. People and relatives said they were happy with the service. Their views were sought and acted on to improve the service provided. Quality assurance checks were in place, however for some areas, these had not identified where improvements needed to be made.
Rating at last inspection:
Requires improvement (report published 26 March 2018.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Enforcement
No enforcement action was required.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.