The RedHouse 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 this inspection, we assessed all quality statements under the responsive key question. At our inspection in 2020, we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People received person-centred care that met their needs. Staff understood individual preferences well, and people felt listened to and involved in decisions about their care. Overall staff were responsive to people's needs. However, there were some delays in some people's continence needs being met at busy times.

People's preferences in relation to advance care planning were not consistently recorded. Despite these concerns, care remained responsive to current needs, and feedback from people, relatives, and professionals was strongly positive. As a result, the rating for responsive is good.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were detailed, capturing each person’s life history, support networks, medical conditions, hobbies, and preferred daily routines. Medical needs were clearly linked to behaviour and wellbeing, with staff guidance tailored to individual circumstances. For example, describinghow depression, dementia, or emotional distress presented, and specifying appropriate support strategies for conditions such as sundowning or anxiety.

Staff engaged with people respectfully and personally, adapting their tone, language, and approach to each person’s communication style and emotional needs. Staff demonstrated a thorough understanding of individual preferences and described how best to support each person. People consistently experienced care that reflected their personalities, preferences, and life experiences. Staff recognised changing needs and adjusted support accordingly. For example, one person said, “I like it here. The girls and boys, they have been looking after me.” A relative praised how the service responded to individual preferences, saying, “[She] has a lovely room, and they asked her what colour she would like—it’s bright and airy.” People consistently told us their care was delivered in a way that suited them, and they felt respected and understood.

The provider’s person-centred approach helped ensure care was tailored and meaningful, fostering dignity, comfort, and a sense of belonging for people living at the service.

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. There was regular input from community healthcare professionals, particularly relating to mental health and behaviour. For example, during the inspection, staff appropriately liaised with the Older People’s Mental Health (OPMH) team following an incident where a person became distressed.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s changing needs and communicated effectively with visiting professionals. Observations included staff providing accurate and current information to clinicians. This was supported by senior staff who maintained good oversight of individuals’ needs. There was a stable staff team with many employees having long service at the home and strong knowledge of peoples’ preferences and histories. Rotas showed consistent staffing arrangements, promoting familiar and trusted care. People received consistent, coordinated care from staff who knew them well, with their health and support needs regularly reviewed alongside relevant professionals.

Healthcare professionals praised the collaborative approach, highlighting timely and appropriate interventions such as safe hospital discharges with assistive aids. One healthcare professional told us the service works collaboratively with them and other services to meet people’s care and support needs. Another healthcare professional said, “Recently, one of the residents had a fall. The home took all the relevant steps and ensured that the resident could return home from the hospital with appropriate walking assistive aid.” These practices supported people’s safety and wellbeing, helping avoid unnecessary disruption to their care.

The provider had established clear processes to involve external professionals, monitor needs, and review care collaboratively. Staff received training and supervision to understand and meet the needs of the people and communities they served.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs and in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). A range of easy-read materials supported understanding of key policies, including safeguarding, complaints, and rights, accessible to both residents and families.

Staff had received training on supporting people with communication needs and were aware of responsibilities related to data protection and information sharing. Pre-admission assessments recorded how individuals preferred to receive information, allowing the service to tailor communication from the outset. The service user guide was clear and transparent, outlining the service’s aims, terms, and associated charges, helping people and relatives understand what to expect. People and their representatives were kept well-informed, with clear points of contact for questions or concerns, promoting transparency, choice, and trust.

People and relatives reported improved communication, attributing positive changes to increased leadership visibility and responsiveness. The provider had implemented processes to regularly review and update information and delivered training on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and communication. Discussions involving people, relatives, and healthcare professionals about care changes took place, documentation of direct involvement in care planning was limited. However, people told us they felt involved in their day-to-day care decisions.

The provider had identified that documentation of people’s involvement in care planning required further improvement. Leaders confirmed this would be a focus of staff supervision.

The provider made 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 kept them informed about any changes made as a result.

The service maintained a robust complaints system, with records demonstrating timely, proportionate investigation and resolution. Complaints were audited to identify any patterns and learning opportunities. People, relatives, and staff had regular opportunities to provide feedback through surveys and meetings. Although the service experienced management instability earlier in the year, recent feedback reflected a positive cultural shift: people felt more included in decisions and confident in raising concerns.

People reported feeling listened to, included, and respected, with support to participate in their care and influence how the service operated. One person told us, “I was fed up with people wandering in and out of my room and the managers arranged for this lovely door gate which has kept unwanted visitors out. I am very happy.” Staff and relatives described a more open culture and approachable management. One relative said, “I can always phone if there are any issues.” Another relative shared, “There is a new manager, they are doing much more, and now you can go in anytime. It’s all much better, and the place has really picked up in the last two months.” Staff also felt heard and supported. One member of staff stated, “I’ve spoken up in the past and felt listened to.” Another added, “I’ve gone to management with a problem, I felt comfortable, supported, and that it was dealt with properly.”

The provider had strengthened systems for listening and responding, including improved communication channels, regular engagement meetings, and transparent complaints handling. Leaders actively used feedback to inform improvements and ensured complaints were resolved effectively.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Communication care plans identified individual needs and outlined strategies to promote effective communication. This reduced barriers to healthcare and other services.

Healthcare plans clearly detailed the level and type of health input required. Evidence showed people were supported to engage with external healthcare professionals, including timely referrals to services such as Older People’s Mental Health (OPMH), Speech and Language Therapy (SALT), local authorities, and independent advocacy. Staff regularly discussed topics like the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) with people. This included discussions with people about when restrictions affected community access. However, these conversations were not always fully documented. This meant records did not accurately reflect the discussions had and had subsequently improved people’s understanding of any restrictions.

Overall, people had timely access to appropriate health and social care support, helping maintain their wellbeing. One person commented, “I would like to go home because I do have wonderful neighbours that can help me be at home for a little longer, but since I am not well enough to go yet, I am enjoying being here for now.” This demonstrated the service’s sensitive balancing of safety and choice. Communication and healthcare plans addressed individual access needs, and staff worked collaboratively with external professionals to facilitate referrals and provide support. Leaders recognised the need to improve documentation of complex decision-making and had plans in place to strengthen this area.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this. The service had up-to-date policies on equality, diversity, and anti-discrimination. Staff received training to increase awareness and address discrimination. Care plans detailed communication and cognitive abilities, including expected outcomes for people. Equality and diversity needs were referenced, though specific examples of best practice tailored to the current resident group were limited. Engagement in care planning was sometimes limited for people with complex needs, but this was mitigated by involvement from relatives when individuals could not fully participate.

There were positive, trusting relationships between staff and people, with staff demonstrating strong knowledge of individual needs and preferences. This enabled personalised support, especially for those with communication challenges. People experienced respectful, compassionate care and felt comfortable raising concerns. One person said, “Everyone is so nice here, they try to help if you need help.” A relative highlighted inclusive, culturally varied activities such as Gongs, Halloween, Chinese New Year, VE Day celebrations, physio sessions, gardening, and community events involving families.

The provider maintained policies and training supporting equality and diversity and fostered positive relationships to tailor care individually. They acknowledged the need to improve documentation to better show how equality and diversity considerations influence care planning and outcomes.

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. This limited opportunities to make informed, timely decisions about future care and support. The absence of meaningful future planning discussions posed a risk that people might not receive care aligned with their wishes during times of change, particularly in relation to end-of-life care. This may affect their dignity, comfort, and sense of control.

Care records reviewed during the inspection did not include evidence that people and their relatives had been actively involved in planning for the future. There were some recorded Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) decisions involving professionals and families. However, advanced care plans that covered people’s broader wishes, values, and end-of-life preferences were rarely completed. Staff had completed training in end-of-life care and bereavement and expressed willingness to improve future planning practices.

The provider acknowledged this was an area for improvement and was developing documentation to support structured and personalised future planning for people. Leaders confirmed that increasing oversight of future care discussions will be a key focus moving forward.