Ridge House Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to sending statutory notifications. Improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 43 (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 have a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and needs of people and their communities.

The provider did not promote an open culture, informing the registered manager they needed their permission to speak with external professionals.

All the staff we spoke with told us they felt the provider was not open or honest with them. They were not kept up to date with his vision or plans for the service which led to on-going speculation and unease amongst the staff group, both in relation to their own employment and the future of the service. Staff told us the provider would raise their voice during staff meetings and threaten staff with dismissal. One staff member raised they were unhappy, they had been ‘threatened with gross misconduct’ in an open group chat.

One staff member told us, “I have never met someone so evasive, or who lies as much as [provider] does. They treat staff very poorly and know nothing about motivating staff.” Another staff member said, “I really have no confidence in [provider].

Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about, and felt well supported by, the registered manager but recognised the impact the providers approach had on them.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider did not have the skills or credibility to lead effectively. Relationships between the senior staff team and the provider had broken down and communications had become hostile. The provider did not listen to feedback from staff or relatives and did not treat people or their families with compassion. One person’s relative told us, “The owner is a tyrant, they need to be investigated, they are terrible [to staff] and the staff don’t trust them.” Another relative said, “The provider has accounting issues. I previously asked for bills, but they never let me have one. I imagine they are brutal in their leadership.” A staff member said, “[Provider] has no respect for the residents and no respect for the staff.”

In contrast, staff felt very well supported by the registered manager and senior staff team. One staff member, who had worked at the home for several years, said “[registered manager] is our 7th manager and by far the best, a dedicated leader who supports their team and genuinely cares about us all, the staff, the residents and their families too.”

People did not always feel they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff and people’s relatives told us they had spoken up about their concerns, but the provider did not listen to them. Staff said they raised issues in team meetings, but the provider would later deny they had done so. One staff member said, “[Provider] will say nothing has been reported but we have proof that we have, they just blame us.” Another staff member said, “[The provider] seems to be ignoring everything.”

Staff, people and relatives told us they felt comfortable raising concerns with the registered manager, and that they were responsive. One person’s relative said, “I would speak to the registered manager, she is brilliant.”

The provider did not value diversity in their workforce. They did not work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider employed several members of staff through overseas sponsorship visas. Staff told us they were not being treated fairly, and the provider was not communicating clearly about the renewal of their visas. This had potential consequences not just for the staff working at Ridge House, but for their families too. One staff member told us, “I have been rather concerned of late as I see my fellow carers upset and highly stressed regarding their jobs here at Ridge House.” Another staff member said, “We are very much dependent on [provider], and they are not that supportive.”

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider did not have effective systems of governance or oversight of the service. They had failed to identify, or create an action plan for, the significant environmental issues we found at this assessment. The provider’s representative had completed some formal governance checks at the service, however these had not been effective nor completed for several months. When we asked to meet with the provider’s representative, they informed us they had left their role with immediate effect.

Staff told us they did not feel confident the provider was investing in the home. One staff member said, “The provider will not fund anything unless they have to or are forced to. The building and facilities are shamefully outdated and shabby.”

The registered manager had, however, implemented good quality assurance systems and completed regular audits. This meant there was good oversight of care delivery.

The registered manager understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The registered manager and senior staff worked well with external professionals and supported people to access the local community, where they wished to.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The registered manager told us they were limited by the provider because they did not support them sharing information or working with senior staff at the providers second service, which was also in the local area. Learning and innovation were stifled by a lack of support and investment into the service and staff team.