Red House is a care home that is registered to provide care and accommodation for older people. The home has two units, with one specialising in support for people with dementia related conditions. The home is located in Bridlington, a seaside town in East Yorkshire.We carried out this inspection to answer our five questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff who supported them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and in how to submit one. This helped to ensure people would be safeguarded as required.
The home was designed to meet the needs of people who lived there and the provider ensured the environment was regularly maintained, safe and fit for purpose. The doorways to bedrooms, communal spaces and toilet/bathing facilities were wide enough for wheelchairs or people with walking frames to mobilise comfortably through them. People who used the service were pleased with the facilities offered by the service. One person told us 'I have a lovely room and the staff keep it nice and clean.'
People were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment because the provider had ensured the equipment used in the service was serviced and maintained and service certificates were available for inspection.
Care files and associated care records were stored securely within the service and detailed policies and procedures were in place with regard to record keeping and retention. Staff had received training on data protection. This meant people could be assured that information about them was kept confidential.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs had been assessed and care plans were in place. There was limited evidence of people being involved in assessments of their needs and planning of their care. However, people said they could discuss their care with the staff or manager and on the whole felt well supported and cared for. One person told us 'The staff are lovely. They treat you with respect and listen to you when you want to talk about your care. I like to do things my own way and the staff support me to be as independent as possible."
Our checks of the records and documents within the service showed that staff received training in safe working practices. Health and safety risk assessments were in place with regard to fire, moving and handling and daily activities of living. The equipment used in the service was serviced and maintained and service certificates were available for inspection. One person told us 'I have every confidence in the staff when they help me with my care and support, they are competent and know how to use the various aids and pieces of equipment I use in my everyday life'.
Is the service caring?
We observed that there were good interactions between the staff and people, with friendly and supportive care practices being used to assist people in their daily lives.
We saw that people asked for drinks and assistance with personal care and these requests were promptly responded to. Staff were respectful and patient with individuals.
All interactions we saw put the wishes and choices of people who used the service first and they were included in all conversations. People who spoke with us said 'The staff look after us' and 'The food is lovely and there is always a choice of meals.' A third person told us 'You sometimes have to wait for staff to see to you, but they always do come though'.
When we spoke with staff it was clear they genuinely cared for the people they supported. However, we observed that staff were sometimes task orientated and did not recognise when people needed additional help. Discussion with the registered manager indicated this was something they had recognised and were taking action on.
Is the service responsive?
People had access to information about the service and what it offered. The manager informed us that on admission the people who used the service were provided with copies of the Statement of Purpose and Service User Guide. In addition to these documents people and relatives were given the provider's 'Living well with dementia' brochure. These documents gave people information about the service in a large, clear print format with plenty of photographs illustrating examples of what people could expect from the service.
People had access to a range of activities in the service. Two people said they had played bowls and attended an exercise class the day before our visit and three others said they enjoyed pastimes such as reading their newspapers, watching television and reading.
People were supported by the staff to fulfil their spiritual needs. People accessed church services in the community and were given support from staff to attend if needed. Visits from clergy could be arranged on request.
People we spoke with said they were confident of using the complaints system if they needed to. They told us that they would speak to the staff or the manager about any issues and that when this happened action was taken quickly to resolve any problems.
Is the service well led?
The service had an effective quality assurance system, which indicated the quality of the service was continually monitored. The records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.
People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. Feedback from these individuals was obtained through the use of satisfaction questionnaires, meetings and one to one sessions. This information was analysed by the provider and where necessary action was taken to make changes or improvements to the service.
The service had an open door policy so staff were able to discuss any concerns with the manager. Regular staff meetings were held so that people could talk about any work issues. This meant that staff were able to provide feedback to their managers and their knowledge and experience was recognised and taken into account.