The RedHouse Care Home

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At this inspection, we assessed environmental safety and safe care and treatment. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

In line with our current assessment framework, we have considered the evidence from this inspection alongside that of the previous inspection. Based on this combined view, the overall rating for the safe key question remains good. Some shortfalls were identified in relation to environmental risks. The provider took immediate action to address the concerns.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. In line with our current assessment framework, we have considered the evidence from this inspection alongside that of the previous inspection, when the service was rated good.

Based on this combined view, the overall rating for the effective key question remains good. We found clear evidence of improved practice in mental capacity assessments and more structured best interest decision-making processes. However, we identified a significant concern regarding the use of CCTV in communal areas and the medicines room without informed consent or a clear legal basis. Despite these concerns, the overall evidence showed that people continued to experience positive outcomes. Feedback from people using the service was consistently positive, and improvements in key areas of practice demonstrated the provider’s ongoingcommitment to delivering effective care. The provider was no longer in breach of Regulation in relation to need for consent.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We assessed 3 quality statements under the caring key question. People living at the service consistently told us that staff were kind, attentive, and caring. We considered this evidence alongside findings from our previous inspection, when the service was rated good. Based on this combined view, the overall rating for the caring key question remains good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At this inspection, we assessed all quality statements under the responsive key question. At our inspection in 2020, we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People received person-centred care that met their needs. Staff understood individual preferences well, and people felt listened to and involved in decisions about their care. Overall staff were responsive to people's needs. However, there were some delays in some people's continence needs being met at busy times.

People's preferences in relation to advance care planning were not consistently recorded. Despite these concerns, care remained responsive to current needs, and feedback from people, relatives, and professionals was strongly positive. As a result, the rating for responsive is good.

Well-Led - This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement due to ongoing shortfalls in governance and inconsistent leadership that affected the service’s ability to deliver safe, person-centred care.

Governance systems were not robust. Audits failed to identify key risks, such as environmental safety issues, inconsistent use of the IDDSI framework, CCTV usage without consent, and gaps in people’s future care planning. These shortfalls limited the provider’s ability to assess, monitor and improve the service. However, feedback from people using the service, relatives, and professionals identified the service was improving.

The provider has started to make changes, but these had not yet been embedded or led to sustained improvements. There was a breach of the regulations in relation to good governance.