Restgarth Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care. The provider was no longer in breach of the regulation relating to dignity and respect.

This service scored 61 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Processes to ensure people received person-centred care were not effective. Changes in people’s needs were not consistently identified and/or monitored. For example, we found one person had been identified as being at risk of falls. Their care plan stated they should be checked hourly during the night. Records for the nights between 22 March 2026 and 25 March 2026 showed they were sometimes gaps of 2 hours between checks.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff were now supporting people to use facilities in the local community. For example, 2 people had visited a local memory café the week before our first visit and there were plans to make this a regular occurrence. The deputy manager had spoken with the harbour master about arranging boat trips for people. This involvement in the local community was important to people and their families as many lived, or had lived, in the area.

Healthcare professionals visited the service to provide support and guidance.
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

At our previous assessment we saw a menu was written on a blackboard mounted to the wall which was not easily accessible to people. At this assessment there were no menus available and the blackboard was not being used. The manager told us they were planning to bring in new menus. However, it was a concern this issue had not already been addressed.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Feedback from relatives about communication was mixed. One commented, “The management could improve by having better communication with family members.”

However, care plans contained information about how staff could engage effectively with people. For example, one care plan stated, ‘Use photos of [pronoun] daughters, [spouse] and holidays to support communication and reduce distress.’
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

At our last assessment we found people who were cared for in bed did not always receive support promptly when requested. At this assessment call bell logs showed this had improved and requests for support were responded to quickly. Staff were able to spend time with people, including those people who chose to remain in their rooms or were cared for in bed.

People had access to other health care professionals including a dementia specialist who was able to provide guidance and advice relating to individual’s specific needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was tailored in response to this.

Improvements had been made to the range of activities available for people, this helped ensure people’s interests were catered for. Two people had been supported to attend a local memory café event set up to support people living with dementia.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People and/or their relatives had been asked how they wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives. End of life care plans had been completed. As well as information about any Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) or Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP) agreements there was detail of people’s individual preferences and family contacts. A relative told us, “I have had a long talk with [manager] about end of life care and what we want to happen then.”