Rose Hill Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People and those close to them were involved in initial and on-going assessments. Records were person centred and reflected what was important to the person.

Pre-admission assessments contained details of the person, their likes and dislikes, health conditions and all aspects of their lives. Based on this, a plan was devised on how to best support the person. Care plans were developed from the initial assessments.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed, recorded and met. Most people were happy with the food on offer. Their comments included, “The food is nice. They usually bring me whatever they’ve cooked – there isn’t a choice. It’s OK. I enjoy it”, “The food is not bad at all. You get what you are given but it’s OK. You get plenty of tea too.” One person stated, “The food is very repetitive – it’s normally some sort of meat and veg in a casserole. We don’t get asked what we would like and there isn’t a menu. There is enough to eat – I’m not hungry but it is not tasty.” However, relatives thought the food on offer was good. One relative told us, “I’ve eaten here and the food is always nice. People do complain about it - things like it isn’t hot enough. That’s a difficult one because they can’t have it too hot for older people. If they have a special day they do a buffet and the food is amazing.” We saw evidence people were given choices at each meal and there were menus available. However, these were not pictorial or clearly displayed so people could read these easily.

Minutes of meetings carried out with people did not highlight any concerns in relation to the food on offer. However we fed this back to the registered manager so they could take appropriate action.

The chef demonstrated a good awareness of people’s various dietary needs, which were updated regularly. They explained that they were informed by the care staff what people wanted to eat on a daily basis, and prepared meals as requested. For example, one person requested scampi and chips every day, and this was provided. They also ensured vegetarian options were available. Where necessary, they enriched the meals of some people who had low nutritional intake and were at risk of losing weight. The chef told us they focused on ensuring all kitchen staff knew how to meet people’s nutritional needs.

The kitchen was clean and there was a good stock of fresh food in the fridge. Food items were clearly labelled with dates and allergens. A recent food and hygiene inspection had awarded the home the highest score of 5.

People’s needs were monitored regularly and any improvements were noted. The registered manager told us, “Some people came at end-of-life stage, but once at the home, they have improved and started eating and feeling better. Some people used to want to stay in their rooms and now like to meet others and go out.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home and there was a good culture and supportive teamwork. One staff member told us, “I am happy working here. I know the service users well. Everyone is happy and want to do their best.”People told us staff worked well together and communicated with them well to meet their needs.

The service worked closely with other agencies and professionals to help ensure a more holistic approach to people’s health and wellbeing.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us their healthcare needs were met and their choices respected. Their comments included, “You don’t have to ask to see a doctor – they’re always on hand” and “I have seen the chiropodist.” A relative added, “Staff would accompany my [family member] to hospital appointments if I wasn’t able to take [them].”

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. Care records contained detailed information about people’s health conditions and how these might affect people. There were regular visits from health care professionals involved in people’s care, and communication between them and the staff and management was effective.

Health care professionals said the staff and management team worked closely with them and communication was good.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The staff team were vigilant and ensured people received effective care so they remained as healthy as possible. For example, one person who had a chronic skin condition was being supported by the tissue viability nurse for wound care management. There was a wound care plan in place which contained detailed instruction for staff to manage the condition.

Another person who was living with diabetes was being supported by trained staff to monitor their blood sugar levels and had regular reviews with the diabetic nurse and the GP. This helped ensure they remained healthy and in control of their condition.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us staff asked for their consent and involved them in decisions about their care and support. They said their choices were respected. The staff received training in the principles of MCA and understood these.

The registered manager ensured people consented to their care and treatment where they could do so. Staff recorded people’s capacity regarding different decisions. The records we reviewed were clear and detailed.