Houndswood House 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 inspection when the service was run by the previous provider, we rated this key question good. At this first assessment under the new provider the rating has changed to 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 legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 30 (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 ensure staff always treated people with kindness or respected their privacy and dignity and was slow to address any concerns raised in relation to this.

We received mixed feedback from people about how they were treated by staff. Some people said staff were lovely, while others said they had experienced rough or impatient care. A person said they felt a member of staff did not like them and wondered if they treated everyone the same way. They said the staff member had told them, “I don’t want to hear you moaning anymore.” This was in response to them saying they were in pain.

They referred to a different member of staff as cruel. A second person said they had seen staff walking away from people needing support, even when this had been brought to their attention.

We observed staff did not consistently engage with people beyond tasks they carried out such as offering drinks or personal care. Some staff provided support to people without speaking to or looking at them. At lunch time we observed staff sitting in silence putting food in people’s mouths without talking or explaining what food they were having.

We saw staff were occasionally sharp with people. When one person asked, “What if I don’t want fruit salad?” Staff responded, “Don’t eat it then.” This was in relation to an activity planned for the afternoon. We saw people in their rooms in a state of undress with the door left open. This meant anyone walking by, including visitors and maintenance staff could see them. This did not protect their dignity and privacy.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. Throughout all site visits staff consistently referred to people by their room number rather than by their name. This was institutional practice and did not portray respect for people as individuals.

Although some activities were provided, people told us these were often cancelled. The activities we observed did not appear to be planned to meet people’s individual preferences and were quite haphazard, taking place in the same room as some people were watching television. Some people were disengaged from the activity and were disturbed from doing something else by staff urging them to take their turn at a game.

Many people complained of feeling bored and there not being enough to do that was of interest to them. This was particularly the case for people cared for in their rooms. 1 person said, “You don’t see people, and when you do they are always so busy. I get bored and lonely. I would like more things to do.” Another person said, I need activities to stimulate. [Activities Coordinator] is good, but there’s not enough.”

Some records continued to lack detail about people’s social needs and preferences. However, work was ongoing to address this.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People did not have control over parts of their lives such as when to get up and dressed for the day; this was determined by staffing. Many people spoke about wanting to get up earlier and this caused distress to some people.

Record keeping was poor and there was little evidence to demonstrate how people were being supported to maintain their independence. The clinical lead had started to review care plans and was including reference to goals in these documents to support people to have aspirations. However, there was little evidence to demonstrate people had been involved in identifying what goals they wanted to achieve.

Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. People’s call bells were not always answered in a timely way.

We saw some call bells were silenced but then staff did not immediately go to the person. People said this was often the case. A person said their call bell was sometimes left out of reach and on an occasion, staff left them in the bathroom and forgot about them.

People told us they had to wait too long for care particularly in the mornings. We saw some people were distressed about this. At 10.45am on 25 February 2025 we observed a person holding their call bell. They looked sad. When asked if they were waiting for staff, they agreed and said, “It’s terrible.” At 11.30am another person was distressed and repeatedly looking at their watch saying, “Look at the time”. They were still waiting for support to get up and dressed. Another person said they had to wait a long time but knew staff were busy. They said they were used to getting up early and missed being independent.

At lunch time we observed 3 people trying to catch the attention of staff, even putting their hands up in an attempt to be noticed. Staff did not respond to them.

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

Staff told us issues raised to the provider were not acted on in a timely way even when these issues impacted on staff’s ability to provide good quality care. For example, kitchen and house-keeping equipment was not replaced despite repeated requests and difficulties related to internet connectivity interfered with their ability to maintain accurate and safe records. Staff were tired and expressed concern about the provider’s reluctance to cover absent colleagues as this increased their workload and reduced the safety and quality of care provided to people. More than 1 member of staff who spoke with us told us they were frightened for the safety of the people they cared for as well as for their own jobs. However, 3 staff we had contact with said they were happy with the support they received and felt the service provided a good experience for people using the service. Staff told us they felt supported by their immediate managers and colleagues but felt managers did not have the time to address issues in the service.