The RedHouse 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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We assessed 3 quality statements under the caring key question. People living at the service consistently told us that staff were kind, attentive, and caring. We considered this evidence alongside findings from our previous inspection, when the service was rated good. Based on this combined view, the overall rating for the caring key question remains good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s rooms were personalised to reflect their tastes and interests. Care plans contained detailed information on religious and cultural needs, ensuring these were respected. During observations, staff demonstrated strong knowledge of people’s needs and maintained warm, respectful relationships. The atmosphere was informal and homely, contributing to a relaxed environment where people appeared comfortable and content.

Positive interactions between staff and people were evident, and activities were offered to support engagement and social wellbeing. However, daily records did not always include personalised details about activities and engagement, an area identified for improvement.

Overall, people experienced care that respected their individuality and preferences. People and relatives spoke positively about the approach of staff. They told us about recent improvements under the new leadership team. One resident said, “Everyone is very kind and approachable, and I feel very safe.” A relative commented, “The care is brilliant, and the carers are lovely.” Another noted the positive cultural shift, reflecting on changes since earlier concerns were addressed: “There’s a new team now, and they are lovely, very kind and chatty with residents.”

The acting manager and leadership team were actively embedding a person-centred culture. This was recognised and appreciated by people and families. Plans were in place to improve daily record-keeping to consistently record people’s preferences, activities, and advanced decisions.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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

Review of care records identified some delays in 4 people’s continence care, with periods exceeding seven hours for 3 people. Records showed 2 people were found in soiled or heavily wet pads without clear documentation explaining the delay or actions taken to minimise discomfort. This indicates inconsistencies in delivering timely personal care. A small number of staff reported that care delivery could be impacted during busier periods or when staffing levels were reduced. This feedback, alongside evidence from care records, suggests that care may not always be consistently responsive, particularly during times of operational pressure.

During the inspection, call bells were accessible and answered promptly. People told us they felt supported by kind and attentive staff. Some staff demonstrated a proactive and intuitive approach to care, recognising when individuals appeared unsettled and responding with appropriate reassurance or offering a different activity. Care plans included personalised support strategies for when people were distressed. Incident records indicated these strategies were used effectively in many cases.

Relatives provided examples of respectful and responsive care and praised staff for managing complex situations with compassion. One person described feeling safer after a requested change was implemented promptly, reinforcing their sense of being listened to. The provider had made progress embedding person-centred support into care planning and daily practice. Staff had received relevant training and were supported to maintain people’s dignity. However, further improvements were needed to ensure care was consistently responsive to people’s immediate physical and emotional needs. Particularly during periods of increased pressure or reduced staffing.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to consistently deliver person-centred care. The service was undergoing a leadership transition, with a new manager recently appointed and recruitment for a deputy manager in progress.

Staff rotas showed sufficient staffing levels aligned to people’s assessed needs. However, some staff reported feeling stretched during periods of higher demand or staff sickness, particularly when asked to support kitchen duties. Supervision records and team meeting minutes demonstrated that staff had regular opportunities to raise concerns, provide feedback, and discuss wellbeing. Recent staff surveys reflected mixed views on morale and support.

During the inspection a minority of staff described a poor management culture and poor team dynamics. However, the overall feedback gathered during the inspection showed an overall improving atmosphere under the new leadership team. The majority of staff expressed feeling supported by the management team, with one saying, “Our new management team are also amazing. They care about our welfare too and they look after us.” Relatives reflected similar sentiments, with one commenting, “It’s really clean now and it feels more relaxed than ever before, and the staff are more relaxed. It’s good.”.

Healthcare professionals noted marked improvements, including better communication, training, and a reduction in complaints, with one stating, “Communication is good and has massively improved in the last few months. Before the service was chaotic and disorganised. Staff training has also improved, and we are no longer receiving all the complaints/concerns about medication that ran out, like before. The atmosphere in the home is much more relaxed and the team seems a lot happier, so do the residents to be fair.”

A supported and valued workforce contributed to a better experience for people using the service. Relatives and health professionals also noted improvements in communication, organisation, and staff morale, which contributed to a calmer and more relaxed environment. The provider had taken important steps to stabilise leadership, re-establish regular staff supervision, and create opportunities for reflection and development. Ongoing plans aimed to strengthen recruitment, build staff resilience to maintain a skilled and supported team. The provider anticipated this would foster a more unified, positive culture.