Red House - Care Home

Updated 8 April 2026

Red House – Care Home provides accommodation and personal care to up to 48 older people, many of whom live with dementia. There were 44 people using the service at the time of the inspection.

This is service is for older people, including those living with dementia.

We carried out this assessment on 19, 20 and 21 May 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People were protected from avoidable harm through a positive learning culture, effective safeguarding arrangements and robust risk management systems. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and were confident in recognising and reporting concerns. Incidents were reported, analysed and used to support learning and improvement. Risks to people’s safety and health were assessed and managed, with learning from incidents and accidents shared through established systems to reduce future risk. Medicines were managed safely, supported by audits and oversight. Staff were recruited safely and received training, supervision and support to carry out their roles effectively. There were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs safely, and staff described good teamwork and support from leaders.

The environment was clean and well maintained, with appropriate safety checks in place. However, there were examples where further development would improve support for people with advanced dementia. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us plans were already in place.

Care was effective and based on detailed assessments, evidence‑based guidance and regular monitoring of people’s health and wellbeing. 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. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. People had consented to their care and aspects of their support. However, consent documentation was not always consistently saved within the electronic care planning system. We brought this to the attention of the registered manager and were assured this oversight would be rectified.

The service was well led, with clear governance systems, visible leadership and a culture that promoted openness, learning and continuous improvement. Leaders had good oversight of quality and safety and used audits, feedback and analysis of incidents to drive improvement. Overall, Red House was a caring, stable and well‑managed service where people experienced kind, respectful and person‑centred care, delivered by staff who knew them well and were supported by effective leadership.

Updated 8 April 2026

People living at Red House told us they felt settled and comfortable in their home. People were supported in a calm, familiar and homely environment. Observations showed people were relaxed, comfortable and reassured by the consistent presence of staff. Interactions between staff and people were warm, respectful and unhurried. Staff always took time to engage meaningfully and respond to what mattered to individuals.

People’s care was personalised and delivered in line with their known preferences, life history and assessed needs. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs and responded flexibly. Inspectors observed staff using reminiscence materials and conversation to engage people meaningfully, taking time to sit with them and adapt their approach. One person told us, “She (staff member) keeps me going.” This highlighted the importance of the relationships people had developed with staff.

People were offered meaningful choices throughout the day, including where to sit, whether to rest or join activities, and how they were supported at mealtimes. Privacy, dignity and respect were promoted, including during personal and sensitive care. Staff were observed asking people what they wanted and responding to their preferences, rather than rushing tasks. People were supported at their own pace, with encouragement and reassurance when needed.

Staff spoke to people respectfully, explained what they were doing and protected dignity when supporting with eating, mobility or comfort. Inspectors observed staff kneeling to people’s eye level and offering reassurance. For example, one staff member said to a person they had supported to move, “You’re alright now. Let’s get you a nice cup of tea.”

People’s care was delivered in line with their known preferences, life history and what mattered to them. People appeared emotionally supported and reassured. Staff used kindness, patience and humour to reduce anxiety and provide comfort, not just physical care. When people became distressed or uncomfortable, staff responded promptly and calmly, which helped people settle and feel safe. A relative told us, “I can’t fault them (staff). They are always with the residents.”

People were supported to have choice, control and freedom from unnecessary restrictions. Assistive technology was used to manage risk while still promoting independence, and staff demonstrated awareness of balancing safety with people’s rights and preferences.

Support at Red House improved people’s day to day wellbeing and sense of purpose. Meaningful interactions, familiar routines and personalised engagement helped people feel valued rather than simply cared for. Relatives consistently provided positive feedback about the service. They told us they felt informed, involved and confident in the care their family members received. One told us, “[We are] extremely happy.”

People experienced care that supported their choice, dignity, emotional wellbeing and quality of life, delivered by staff who knew them well and took time to provide reassurance, companionship and respectful support.