Richard House Care Home

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

Care was not always delivered in a way that upheld people’s dignity or showed kindness and compassion. While staff were observed to be polite and kind in some interactions, care was not always delivered in a way that consistently upheld people’s dignity, respected what mattered to them or demonstrated empathy for their emotional needs.

Relatives reported that people’s clothing and personal belongings were not always managed with care. Items such as clothing, glasses, dentures and hearing aids were sometimes misplaced or lost and not recovered promptly. This caused distress for people and their families and reduced confidence that personal belongings were being respected.

Relatives described gaps in compassionate support. Some relatives said that people’s worries or distress were not always acknowledged in a reassuring way. Instead, concerns were sometimes felt to be minimised or not taken seriously. This reduced assurance that people were consistently supported with compassion when they were anxious or needed comfort.

Care delivery did not always reflect a shared understanding of what was important to each person. Information about people’s individual preferences, routines and personal priorities was not consistently incorporated into care plans or documents used to guide daily care. While some people’s care plans were detailed and demonstrated a clear, person‑centred understanding of what mattered to them, this was not the case for everyone.

Where information about individual preferences was missing, unclear or inconsistent, this limited staff’s ability to reliably support people in a way that reflected them as individuals. As a result, care was not always delivered in a personalised or consistent way. People’s experiences could vary depending on which staff were supporting them, rather than being guided by clear, accessible information. This reduced assurance that all people were consistently treated as individuals, with care and support tailored to their personal needs and preferences.

People were not always supported to maintain independence, exercise choice or have control over their day to day lives. People’s opportunities to exercise independence and choice were sometimes affected by staff availability. As a result, engagement and choice were not always based on what people wanted, but on what could be supported at the time.

Relatives raised concerns about limited opportunities for meaningful activity and engagement. Feedback indicated that activities were not routinely available or accessible to all people. One relative told us, “Before [my family member] moved in we were told that they had lots of activities and there were going to be more activities and that they took them out for outings, but they don’t.” This reduced people’s ability to make choices about how they spent their time and to take part in activities that supported wellbeing and independence. Activities were not consistently inclusive. People who were cared for in bed or required higher levels of support were not always offered suitable or adapted activities. A relative described the impact of limited engagement, saying their family member would sometimes say, “I don’t know how much more I can cope with just sitting in my chair all day.” They also told us, “There is a garden, but nobody is available to take them out there.”

Relatives described situations where their family members were not always supported to exercise choice in their day‑to‑day routines. This included choices about clothing and personal presentation, and support to use personal aids such as glasses or dentures. Where people tried to remain independent, they were not always supported in ways that reflected their abilities or support needs, which reduced confidence and control over their daily lives.

There were also concerns that people’s independence and choice were affected by inconsistent staff understanding of individual needs. Where staff were not familiar with how a person’s support needs affected what they could safely or confidently do for themselves, this limited people’s ability to remain active or feel in control.

During the inspection, recent improvements were identified, including the appointment of an activities coordinator who had introduced activities and shared plans for the future.

People’s immediate needs were not always responded to promptly or in a person‑centred way. People were not always supported quickly when they needed assistance, which affected their safety and comfort. While the service had recognised concerns relating to call bell response times and had taken action to review and address this, records focused mainly on response times and completion of actions. There was limited evidence that people were asked about their experiences of waiting for assistance or how delays affected them at the time they needed support. This reduced assurance that the service fully understood what delays meant to people or used their feedback to improve responses in a way that reflected peoples lived experience.

There was limited assurance that people’s immediate needs following incidents or changes in their condition were always identified and followed up promptly. Feedback indicated gaps in continuity and communication between staff, which meant people were not always checked on regularly or reassessed when concerns occurred. This increased the risk that immediate needs were not consistently recognised or responded to in a timely way.

Staff were not consistently supported, which affected how confident and supported they felt in their roles and limited their ability to work safely and effectively. Staff feedback described limited access to supervision, guidance and development, and concerns raised about workload and working conditions were not always acted upon. This left some staff feeling unsupported in their roles. Despite these concerns, several staff spoke positively about their colleagues and described a caring and committed approach towards people using the service.

Following feedback, the provider took steps to address staff wellbeing. This included increased management presence within the service, engagement with staff to understand concerns, and plans to strengthen supervision and support arrangements.