SafeAre people protected from abuse and avoidable harm?25%Inadequate
See the breakdownHide the breakdown8 of 8 below good
Infection prevention and controlSignificant shortfalls
Involving people to manage risksSignificant shortfalls
Learning cultureSignificant shortfalls
Medicines optimisationSignificant shortfalls
Safe and effective staffingSignificant shortfalls
Safe environmentsSignificant shortfalls
Safe systems, pathways and transitionsSignificant shortfalls
SafeguardingSignificant shortfalls
EffectiveDoes care achieve good outcomes and a good quality of life?38%Inadequate
See the breakdownHide the breakdown6 of 6 below good
Assessing needsSignificant shortfalls
Consent to care and treatmentSignificant shortfalls
Monitoring and improving outcomesSignificant shortfalls
Delivering evidence-based care and treatmentSome shortfalls
How staff, teams and services work togetherSome shortfalls
Supporting people to live healthier livesSome shortfalls
CaringAre staff kind, compassionate and respectful?45%Requires improvement
See the breakdownHide the breakdown5 of 5 below good
Workforce wellbeing and enablementSignificant shortfalls
Independence, choice and controlSome shortfalls
Kindness, compassion and dignitySome shortfalls
Responding to people's immediate needsSome shortfalls
Treating people as individualsSome shortfalls
ResponsiveAre services organised to meet people's needs?25%Inadequate
See the breakdownHide the breakdown7 of 7 below good
Care provision, integration and continuitySignificant shortfalls
Equity in accessSignificant shortfalls
Equity in experiences and outcomesSignificant shortfalls
Listening to and involving peopleSignificant shortfalls
Person-centred careSignificant shortfalls
Planning for the futureSignificant shortfalls
Providing InformationSignificant shortfalls
Well-ledIs the home well managed, with a culture of high-quality care?32%Inadequate
See the breakdownHide the breakdown7 of 7 below good
Capable, compassionate and inclusive leadersSignificant shortfalls
Freedom to speak upSignificant shortfalls
Governance, management and sustainabilitySignificant shortfalls
Shared direction and cultureSignificant shortfalls
Workforce equality, diversity and inclusionSignificant shortfalls
Learning, improvement and innovationSome shortfalls
Partnerships and communitiesSome shortfalls
Percentages are CQC scores from its newer way of assessing homes. ?
CQC scored 33 standards: 0 good, 33 below good. Use “See the breakdown” on each key question for its standards. ?
CQC hasn't inspected this home for more than 5 years. It re-inspects based on risk, so an old rating doesn't count against a home on this site, but it may not reflect the home today. ?
CQC's register shows no registered manager for this home. Every care home must have one. The home may be recruiting, or a new manager may be applying to CQC. ?
The Red House Welfare & Housing Society is in the Inadequate tier ?, with 2 other homes in Suffolk.
81% of rated homes here are Good or Outstanding (England: 82%).
What the data says about The Red House Welfare & Housing Society
Red House Welfare And Housing Society runs The Red House Welfare & Housing Society, a residential care home in Sudbury, Suffolk with room for 31 residents. Its CQC registration covers older people.
CQC last rated the home in October 2026, giving it Inadequate overall. Safe, effective, responsive and well-led were also Inadequate. Caring was rated Requires improvement. Before that, in June 2023, it was rated Good. That is more recent than most ratings in Suffolk, where the typical rating is about 4 years old. 33 of its 33 scored standards were below good, including “workforce wellbeing and enablement”.
The nearest home with a higher rating is Catchpole Court (Requires improvement), 0.5 km away. The kitchen has a food hygiene rating of 5 (very good), from January 2026. That is true of 92% of homes in Suffolk. Across Suffolk, 81% of rated homes are Good or Outstanding, against 82% for England. CQC's register shows no registered manager at the moment.
