Restgarth 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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of regulations in relation to people’s safe care and treatment and dignity and respect.

This service scored 35 (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.

People’s dignity was not always respected. During the assessment we observed people were not assisted with continence care. One relative told us they were worried about visiting their loved one as they had previously found them in need of personal care and distressed due to staff not completing regular checks.

Another relative described finding their family member sitting on the side of the bed, half undressed with a used continence pad left on top of personal photographs. They told us, “This isn’t care.”

We observed several rooms where people were asleep in bed with the door open. We discussed this with a manager who told us some people asked for their door to be left open. This was not recorded in care records, and we could not be assured people were happy with the arrangement.

Records showed people were infrequently supported to bathe or shower.

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

A supporting manager told us care plans had not been reviewed, and some had not been completed in full. Staff told us they were not aware of one person's medical diagnosis and therefore were not aware of the person's needs.

One member of staff had received an injury to their arm from a person who was distressed. We reviewed the care plan for this person and found no guidance for staff on the actions they should take to respond to this behaviour. This lack of clear guidance meant there was a risk of inconsistent care which could cause further distress for the person.

One person was prescribed a medication that contained an animal product, and staff were observed administering the medication to the person. The person told us they were a vegetarian. Staff were not aware of the medication ingredients, and the care plan did not evidence if the person was aware and had made an informed decision to take it

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.

People were not always supported in a way that promoted their wellbeing. We observed people sitting for long periods with little interaction from staff. A relative commented, “I don’t get a feeling of happiness, there’s not much laughter.” Staff told us they were often too busy to spend time engaging with people or offering activities.

One person told us they were bored. When we revisited them later, we noted they had moved the position of their chair. They commented, “Yes, I thought I’d see what it felt like facing this way.” A relative commented, “Because [relative] stays in bed they don’t get much stimulation.”

Some people living at the service had a diagnosis of dementia. There was no signage to support orientation or promote independence. Bedroom doors were not clearly marked or individualised so people could easily recognise them as being their room. During the inspection one person appeared confused, and we assisted the person to find their room.

However, during the inspection we observed family visitors were able to visit their loved one throughout the day. Relatives comments included; “They encourage [pronoun] to get up” and “[Relative] likes to walk up and down the corridors, the staff like them and stop to ask how many steps they’ve done today, they have a nice rapport with them” and “The carers know [pronoun] likes music and put the radio on which [pronoun] likes in the background.”

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

People did not always receive care when they needed it. Daily records and our observations identified people who did not receive care for long periods during the day. For example, on the first day of the inspection we noted 2 people who appeared not to have received support throughout the day. We asked managers to review the CCTV footage for the day and the previous day to check if they had received appropriate support. The records showed, on 23 September 2025, one person was taken to the dining room for breakfast at 7.37 where they remained until after lunch. At 14.06 they were taken to a shared lounge and then back to the dining room at 16.31. At 18.31 they were taken back to their room. They were not assisted with continence care or repositioning during these times, a period of just under 13 hours.

Staff and some relatives told us call bells were not answered quickly. We reviewed the call bell log. Some calls were answered within seconds, but others took much longer. In one case, a person waited up to 39 minutes for support. We received feedback from a professional who reported an occasion when a member of staff stated they did not have time to assist the person. This meant people’s care needs were not always met in a timely or respectful way. Relative’s comments included; “Theres not always enough staff there. Once we rang the doorbell and had to wait 10 minutes before being let in. We went up to her room and [relative] was in bed with the call bell ringing. I think they do their best though” and “The girls working there seem good at their job, but we heard call bells ringing.”

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

The provider failed to ensure staff received appropriate support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal as necessary to enable them to carry out their role and support their wellbeing.

Staff spoke positively about the deputy manager but felt they were not well supported on a day-to-day basis. Supervisions were not taking place regularly, although managers from the organisation's sister homes were providing some managerial support this was mainly remotely.

Staff spoke openly of a divide within the team. Some staff indicated this was linked to religious and cultural differences. The staff meeting minutes highlighted this was an issue a month before our inspection, however staff told us this had not been rectified.

Multiple staff told us they felt unable to raise concerns, as when they had raised concerns previously these were dismissed or ignored by the senior leadership team. Staff were seen to be visibly upset and worried about the lack of care provided to people.