Archived: Rodney House 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 our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

This service scored 32 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans lacked details about how people preferred their care to be delivered. For example, their preferred gender of staff and preferred daily routines. Each care plan had an ‘about me’ section. This was a space within the care plan to record important information about families, social networks and previous history. This had not been completed for some people so what was important to them was not always known.

There were shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. People told us they felt they did not always receive the care and treatment they needed. Some people told us they were missed from being offered meals on occasion. One person told us they had never been offered the opportunity to take a shower. Poor record keeping did not support people were offered consistent care. One person required additional support to clean their bedroom however, staff did not provide consistent support at agreed times to effectively mitigate any anxiety this activity would pose for the person. Staff did not demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the complex needs of people, particularly in relation to addictions and complex behaviour support. There was a lack of appropriate training to upskill staff in these areas.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There was a service user guide which provided brief information about smoking arrangements within the home. This information was limited and did not elaborate on the specific smoking rooms available, or explain to people the actions the provider would take if people did not adhere to these arrangements. This information was important to share with people because of the safety risks smoking caused within the service. Food options were written on aboard in the dining room on the basement level, however, the menu was not always displayed on the ground floor. When we asked people what they were expecting for their meal, they all said they didn’t know.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Meetings did not regularly take place with people, or their families to gather their views and feedback. There was a complaints policy however, the management team was unable to provide any evidence of recent complaints they had received, and how they had resolved issues with people.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff did ensure people were able to access medical assistance in an emergency by calling the doctor or calling for an ambulance. Some equipment was in place to alert staff if a person fell or protect them from physical injury. There was an on-call procedure in place, however, staff were unsure who to contact in an emergency. Most people confirmed to us they were able to see the doctor or other medical professionals if they needed, however, record keeping was poor and inconsistent. We were not always able to determine all people had equitable access to timely and appropriate support. One person had extremely long toenails. There were no records maintained to demonstrate whether staff had sought input and advice from a chiropodist.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. The provider did not ensure staff with the right training was effectively deployed to ensure people received safe support. Risk assessments and care plans failed to reflect people’s full care needs, along with detailed guidance for staff to ensure they responded appropriately to people. People who lacked capacity and people who received care in their bedroom did not receive care which promoted their physical wellbeing as they did not have the same opportunities as others to access the local community. People who stayed in their bedroom did not receive the same amount of staff interaction and time. The time they did spend with staff was task focused and not focused on other aspects of the wellbeing, such as reducing social isolation.

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. Some people had expressed their wishes regarding end-of-life care, which was recorded, for example, one person had a do not resuscitate order in place. For many other people, this aspect of care was not known, planned or recorded. One people told us they were planning to move on from Rodney House Care Home to more independent accommodation and was working with their social worker to achieve this. There was no evidence staff were involved or supporting the person through this process. Staff were not assisting the person to develop independent living skills or supporting them to develop practicable and meaningful goals to achieve their aim.