Houndswood House 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.

Inadequate: This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs. 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 always 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. At our last assessment, the provider was in breach of person-centred care, at this assessment we found improvements had been made but they remained in breach.

People were not always provided with care which met their individual needs and preferences. We observed interactions between staff to be compassionate, but brief, and task focused. Staff appeared to lack time to meet people’s social needs, and some people fed back not all staff treated them with kindness.

People and their relatives’ involvement in care planning had improved. The registered manager told us the clinical lead had met with people and relatives and was re-doing all the care plans. People’s relatives confirmed this. A relative told us, “Communication was a major issue in the early months but has improved…We have recently been asked to attend a care plan review.”

Staff had recorded people’s physical and mental health care needs. However, information about protected characteristics or details of people’s backgrounds and interests to support their social or cultural needs was limited.

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.

People’s care records included input from other health professionals involved in supporting their needs. A relative said, “They are spot on with health, [person] had a runny nose, they called the GP, more than enough attention. [Person] did get pneumonia, and they were quick to react.”

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

The information displayed on noticeboards, such as activities for the week were not in accessible formats and some information was out of date. For example, the newsletter was from June 2025. We did not see any information about the menus during our visit. However, the provider told us this was in an album in the dining area and following our visit they arranged for a menu board to be displayed with the options for the day.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider had not ensured details of all complaints were recorded on the system with actions taken. The registered manager acknowledged their system was not running well to ensure complaints were collated, but they told us there had not been many and gave examples of those received and action taken. People who had complained were happy with how they were dealt with. A relative told us, “I have only had to make 1 complaint in 5 years, and it was managed excellently and rectified immediately.” Another relative said, “Yes, we have raised concerns and requested information both verbally and by email. The handling of this and responses has improved recently.”

People and their relatives gave mixed feedback about communication with the home. A person told us, “If I was unhappy, I would speak to the staff, I feel listened to.” Another person said, “I know the owner and the manager and can talk to them if I need to.” A relative said, “Drawback is the communication, lacking, very sporadic…the communication is getting better over the last few months.” Another relative told us, “I go to the owner if I want to be heard. Sometimes it can take a couple of emails before I get a response. They are not great communicators.” However, we were also told by a relative, “We have had meetings to discuss my [relative’s] care and have been kept informed of actions the home feel is required.” And another relative said, “I have a complaint at present, but the care home seems to be addressing it and have provided a solution. We are regularly updated as to my [relative’s] health, and I have a care planning meeting coming up.”

Following our assessment, the provider had issued a survey to gain feedback from staff, people and relatives.

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

People had call bells within reach in their rooms to alert staff if they needed help.

The premises were fully accessible and there was lift access to all floors. There was a person whose wheelchair did not fit in the lift. This person tended to remain in their room, and it was unclear whether this was by choice or access issues.

The provider had policies to ensure compliance with human rights requirements. This included consideration of the needs of people with protected characteristics.

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.

People with mental health conditions were not always supported to engage in meaningful activities and people who remained in their rooms were at greater risk of social isolation.

People were not always 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.

Staff were not trained in end-of-life care or how to monitor deterioration. Not all nurses had been trained in the use of syringe drivers, and no one had been competency assessed for this. However, people with physical conditions requiring close monitoring had risk assessments which informed staff of signs of deterioration and at the time of our visit, there were no people supported with end-of-life care.

People’s care plans included some information about their wishes at the end of their life and whether they had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR.)