Working at The Red House Nursing Home
Main Street, Buckingham, MK18 1QL
Operated by Mr & Mrs P Sohanpaul
32 bedsNursing homes
Workplace Score
4.1/10
AI analysis of latest data
Our AI workplace review
PlainSight AI Review
Last updated: 10 February 2026
Score: 4.1/10
Key Finding
"Residents and staff praise the friendly culture and improvements to activities, but poor safeguarding and weak governance hold it back."
Safety & Risk
2/10
✕
We found safeguarding referrals had not always been made to the local authority when required. We had not been notified of significant events which providers are required to inform us about. This included skin tears and a fractured thumb.
Staff Culture
6/10
✓
People we spoke with were complimentary of staff. One said 'Staff are brilliant,' another commented 'They're very good to me.' A member of staff told us 'It is a nice place to work'
Staffing Levels
4/10
!
Agency workers were used to cover gaps on the rotas, when necessary. The provider had not ensured it had obtained satisfactory evidence of recruitment and training from the agency, to make sure people were always cared for by workers with the right skills and experience.
Training & Dev
4/10
!
Records of fire drills were insufficient to demonstrate all staff had been effectively trained and would know what to do in the event of a fire or other emergency.
Management
3/10
✕
The provider had not ensured there was effective governance of the service, to make sure people received good standards of care. The nominated individual regularly visited the home but there were insufficient records of findings or suggestions for improving care practice.
Programmes
5/10
!
The registered manager told us about improvements which had been made. These included participation in a national project to improve the well-being of people with dementia, improving garden facilities, purchasing sensory dolls and animal therapy visits.
Points to consider
Injuries like skin tears and broken thumbs from falls weren't always reported to safeguarding teams or regulators, so problems don't get fixed properly.
Safeguarding referrals had not always been made to the local authority when required. We had not been notified of significant events... This included skin tears and a fractured thumb.
Bosses don't track issues well, as their visits and audits missed safety gaps like poor safeguarding.
The nominated individual regularly visited the home but there were insufficient records of findings or suggestions for improving care practice. Monitoring and auditing systems did not identify the range of issues we found.
Agency workers cover rota gaps but without checks on their criminal records or training, so shifts include temps who might lack skills.
Agency workers were used to cover gaps on the rotas... records provided by the agency... were insufficient to demonstrate robust practices were used. For example, none of the records said an enhanced level of Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check had been carried out.
AI Generated
CQC Inspection Overview
CQC Inspection
Last inspected: July 2022
Requires improvement
Safe
!
Requires improvement
Effective
✓
Good
Caring
✓
Good
Responsive
✓
Good
Management Quality
Well-led: Requires improvement
Staff Reviews
Direct feedback from current and former employees
No one has reviewed yet. Be the first.
Scan the QR code or tap the button to chat with us on WhatsApp. Your identity stays completely anonymous.
Chat on WhatsAppSources
- Care Quality Commission (CQC) Inspection Data
- PlainSight staff reviews