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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

This service scored 57 (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 work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

There was no activity co-ordinator in post at the time of the assessment. When they had time, staff sometimes organised activities such as bingo or word games. However, we were not assured these were meaningful for people or aligned to their interests and hobbies. People who spent most of their time in their rooms had very limited opportunity to take part in any activity or social engagement. Staff told us they chatted with people when completing tasks but had very little time to do anything else.
Relatives commented, “[My relative] just sits in the day room, doesn’t talk and is just left on their own too much. The carers don’t have time to just sit with her” and “They do check on [my relative], to take blood pressure and to give tablets but they don’t chat with [pronoun].”
We found people were still not being supported to shower or bathe regularly. For example, we looked at 7 people’s daily notes between 17 August 2026 to 9 September 2026. Five people had not had a shower or bath at all, 1 person had been supported to have 1 bath and 1 person, who was fairly independent had been helped to shower or bathe twice. The records showed 2 people had sometimes refused a bath or shower. There were no records staff had attempted to further encourage them.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

There had been changes in the staff team and some relatives expressed a concern about the consistency of care their family member received. Comments included, “I do not feel that the same knowledge of [my relative] exists amongst the remaining team” and “There’s no real consistency in staff here, always changing and that’s a shame.”
Relatives told us people had very limited opportunities to use facilities in their local community. Although we had found this had improved at our previous assessment these improvements had not been sustained. One relative commented, “They do the best they possibly can but I’d love to see them go on a coach trip for the day.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
People’s communication needs were identified and recorded. Since our previous assessment, printed menus had been developed and were displayed in the dining room.

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 did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Relative views on communication with the service were mixed. Some felt the communication could be improved, and they did not always feel they were kept informed about their family members changing needs. One commented “I haven’t been told anything other than the District Nurse is seeing [pronoun]. I’ve not seen their care plan since March.”
Other relatives commented on a lack of more general information stating, “We've also been told that newsletters would be circulated to share information on the home but again this has never eventuated. I think an element of this communication has been hindered by a lack of admin support and an activities facilitator. Yet for families, it's important to know what's happening on the ground, whether it's management home talk, social, activities, life in general.”
One relative had raised some concerns about their family members care with the manager. This had not been added to the service complaints log. The manager told us they were looking at improving how they responded to complaints. Following the assessment, they told us they had met with the relative again and were working to improve the communication with them.
Other relatives were more positive about communication. One told us, “I have a monthly phone call with [manager], or a face to face when I’m visiting. [Manager] is very accommodating.”

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

A GP visited the service weekly. The manager told us they could add anyone to the list of people the GP would see if they had any concerns about their health. Relatives told us staff recognised when people were unwell and sought advice. Comments included, “[Relative] had a chest infection, saw the GP and then they got an ambulance in and they had intravenous antibiotics at Derriford Hospital and then back to Restgarth” and “The home is very well supported by the local surgery. The GP goes to the home every Monday and the District Nurse visits regularly.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The service had worked with specialised mental health professionals to tailor support for people living with dementia. A professional told us managers were approachable and open to advice but, “[The provider] has failed to give sufficient prominence and weight to providing social stimulation, activity, and access to safe outside space as to the basic routines of the care home.”

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 which contained information about any Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) or Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP) agreements and detail of people’s individual preferences and family contacts.