Rosehill House

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance and oversight, including consent to care and treatment.

This service scored 58 (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.

Assessments of need were completed, in relation to pressure care, skin integrity, mobility, oral health and continence care for example. This information was used to develop care plans, however there was limited evidence people, or appropriate others were involved in this process.

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 and catered for. People told us they enjoyed the food and ate well. The kitchen was clean, tidy and well stocked.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Hospital passports were in place; however, they had not always been reviewed or updated. Some hospital passports had not been replaced following a person’s admission to hospital, meaning information was not readily available should the person need a further admission.

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.

Hospital passports were in place; however, they had not always been replaced if they had been shared with the hospital during an admission. People commented that staff arranged for them to see the nurse or Doctor if they requested it.

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.

People’s experience was positive as staff knew them well and worked to ensure care and support was appropriate and met their needs and preferences. However, reviews were not always detailed and robust.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were not understood or followed. Processes to assess people’s capacity were not robust. There was no evidence that consent had been sought or best interest decisions made in relation to the use of door alarms or CCTV which are considered a restriction under the MCA. Some consent forms had been completed by family members who did not hold the appropriate Lasting Power of Attorney which would give a legitimate legal basis for giving consent on behalf of their relative. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were not fully understood and had not been appropriately applied for.