Red Brick House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 20 October 2025. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 9 September to 8 October 2025.

Red Brick House is a care home providing accommodation, personal and nursing care to a maximum of 50 older people, including people who may live with dementia. At the time of our unannounced visit, 40 people were using the service.

There was a manager in place who had applied to become registered as manager with the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager is legally responsible to ensure that the service is compliant with legal and regulatory requirements.

The service was flexible and adapted to people's changing needs and wishes and promoted their independence. Improvements had been made to care records for the management of risk to ensure people received safe care. Care records were detailed, person-centred and reflected people's care needs. Accidents and incidents were investigated, action taken, and lessons were learned.

There were sufficient trained staff who worked with other professionals to ensure people's needs were met in a safe and timely way. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. However, we discussed with the registered manager the improvements that were needed with how some staff engaged with people.

Infection prevention control was mostly effective. The environment was maintained to keep people safe, however areas of the home were showing signs of wear and tear. We also signposted the provider to ensure that information was advertised in an accessible format to keep people informed and involved in decision making.

People's diversity as unique individuals with their own needs, was well-respected by staff. The staff team knew people well and provided support discreetly and with compassion. People’s privacy was respected, and people were supported to maintain contact with relatives and friends. The culture of the service was friendly, open and transparent where people's and staff’s voices were listened to in order to continually improve the quality of care. People, relatives and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager if they needed to. They recognised that their views and feedback were valued and respected and consistently used to support quality service development.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the service and management. Governance was mostly effective, however we advised more frequent audits, and spot checks of the environment and people’s dining experience to ensure and maintain the quality and safety of service provision.