Redclyffe Residential Care Home

“We visited the home twice. Both times were unannounced.”

“We reviewed a range of peoples care records, risk assessments, and reviews. We looked at staff records, and a range of policies including those related to medicines, and safeguarding. We spoke to people living there, staff, the registered manager, and relatives of people who lived at the home. We obtained opinions from external stakeholders e.g. Local authorities for their opinion of the home.”

“At the time of our inspection 26 people were living in Redclyffe care home, supported by a rota of 20 staff members,”

“Staff protected people's privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way.”

“People, where possible, were involved in assessments of their needs with relatives also being involved from the beginning. Staff reviewed assessments with them, taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. People had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living.”

“Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent if they were able to do so. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA, but paperwork did not always support this. This was rectified during our inspection by the registered manager, and we are not aware of any harm which had occurred because of this. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions.”

“Relatives knew how to give feedback and were confident the provider took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. Staff worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback.”

“Most people had their own bedrooms and bathrooms, and they were able to personalise these if they chose to. There were large reception rooms downstairs and people were encouraged to use these and join in with an extensive activities program.”

“Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities.”