Ridge House Residential 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 60 (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, or respect their privacy and dignity.

The provider did not consider the impact the environment had on people’s dignity. People were living with bad odours, broken furniture, chipped beds, and for 1 person, rainwater leaking into their bedroom. One staff member said, “I don’t think [the provider] cares very much for the residents. He’s aware [of the maintenance issues] but no action is taken.” Another staff member said, “We try our level best to give good care but are stopped by maintenance and finance.”

However, staff treated people well and people and their relatives told us staff were kind and compassionate. One person’s relative told us, “They’ve been brilliant with [relative].” Another relative said, “I think the staff are wonderful, a lot of them are from [abroad] and their English language is very good, they are very caring.” A third persons’ relative said, “They are amazing, incredible, professional, very kind and considerate.”

The registered manager treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans fully reflected their individual needs, preferences and personalities. They included details that were important to people, such as the type of mug they liked to use, or where they liked to eat their meals.

The registered manager promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to remain as independent as possible, and to be actively involved in their own care. For example, people’s care plans reflected where people were able to manage elements of their care themselves, and what level of support staff should offer. This meant people retained their autonomy and independence where they were able to, whilst having access to support for other areas of care.

People were supported to maintain relationships and engage in hobbies and interests. Staff provided a variety of activities people could choose to take part in.

The registered manager listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People were assisted promptly and staff were responsive to people’s needs. Staff understood the different ways people communicated, and people’s care plans contained details about how, for example, people might communicate signs of distress.

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

Staff told us the provider treated them with disrespect. The providers approach to managing the service was having a significant impact on staff wellbeing. We observed the provider speaking harshly to one member of staff, who became visibly upset as a result.

Staff meeting minutes showed the provider using threatening and dismissive language towards staff who raised concerns, and threatening disciplinary action for non-attendance at meetings, despite them being arranged at short notice, informing staff their contract required them to be available ‘7 days a week, 24 hours a day.’ Meeting records showed a staff member challenging this, and the provider responding, “If you don’t like working here, pack your bags and go.”

Staff working for the provider under a sponsorship licence felt uncertainty around if these would be renewed or not. This impacted their own wellbeing, and the security of their family.

Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager. One member of staff said, “[Registered manager] is lovely, and tries to help us. I was a senior and now I’m a team leader, I couldn’t have done it without [registered manager, and my colleagues are very supportive.” Another staff member said, “[registered manager] is so supportive and gives us training on so many things, I am happy to work under her.”