Rosehill House

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 requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff knew people well, including their history, needs and preferences. Care was person centred, and staff responded appropriately to changes in people’s needs.

There were some 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’s needs were understood on an individual basis, however systems and processes had not been implemented to ensure joined up care, for example in relation to capacity and consent and ensuring hospital passports were in place and available.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Consent forms were not always shared with the appropriate people, meaning some people who had no legal basis to consent on people’s behalf were doing so.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was no evidence people, and appropriate others had been involved in care planning and reviews. A relative said, “There are no family meetings at all.” The provider confirmed there had not been any resident or relatives’ meetings since January 2020, and feedback surveys had not been completed since May 2023.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. One person said, “I’ve felt a little off, so I’ve spoken to staff and the nurse is coming to see me.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

Accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were not always appropriately reported or investigated for themes, trends and learning. This meant people’s care was not always updated or reviewed.

People were 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. Death and dying care plans were in place. Where Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation orders (DNACPR) were in place they were reviewed and in date. Some people also had Emergency Health Care Plans (EHCPs) which reflected their wishes.