The Red House Welfare & Housing Society

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

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 changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion. We saw no evidence of deliberate intention to treat people unkindly. However, the failure of some of the provider’s systems resulted in some people receiving delayed care and medical attention.

We received mixed feedback from people about how staff treated them. One person described a member of care staff as “An awful person,” and went on to describe an incident where they had not been treated well. However, another person said, “Very good here, got a tremendous amount of care.”

Staff told us how they treated people with dignity and respect, and we saw examples of this during our inspection visits.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care plans did not consistently include people’s personal preferences and did not include detailed information about their life histories and things that were important to them.

However, some people told us that despite the lack of information in care plans care staff treated them well. A person said, “Respectful very much so, they say it is our job when I thank them, they are so kind and caring, got no complaints.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We found concerns in relation to how people’s rights were respected. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not always in place or correctly applied. In some cases, medicines were used to manage behaviour without clear evidence of least restrictive options being explored. This meant people’s freedom, autonomy and legal rights were not always protected.

People could choose to engage in activities offered by the service. A person told us, “I went to the flower arranging, was quite nice, that was fun, they asked me today.” We observed a member of activities staff doing a quiz with an individual. They also went from room to room offering a quiz and a chat. Where people were able, we saw they independently accessed events in the local community.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Care records and risk assessments were not always clear or consistent. This meant staff may not understand how best to support people safely. For example, a lack of detail as to how much fluid a person required and poor recording as to what had been provided. This resulted in inconsistent care delivery and meant there was no reliable way to confirm the person's nutritional and hydration needs were being met safely.

We could not be assured that staff would be able to respond to people’s immediate needs, as there were concerns with staff deployment, for example some night shifts showed only male staff worked which directly conflicted with the preferences of individuals who had requested female staff for support with personal care.

We received mixed feedback regarding staff response to people’s needs. A person said, “On average they come pretty well.”

The provider did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff did not feel valued by their leaders and their colleagues they described a bullying culture with poor leadership. Care staff had contacted the provider raising concerns about the service management. These had not been responded to appropriately and no action had been taken to address the concerns raised or a deteriorating staff culture within the home. A member of staff said, “No one is held to account, behaviours are not addressed.”