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 service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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.

People and their relatives were involved in their care planning where required. One relative told us, “We had a choice of two care homes but preferred this one for [person]. We did the care plan when they came in, and [staff] have discussed any changes with us since then. Staff let us know of any changes.”

Staff told us about how they provided person-centred care, and we generally observed this to be the case. One staff member told us, “We have access to people’s care plans and learn about them through conversations. I talk with [person] about their favourite holiday destinations as it means a lot to them.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies including GP practices. They worked particularly closely with the district nursing team.

One professional visiting the service told us, “We have a good relationship with the care home. One of the residents had a [health device] and staff would ring us if there were any issues.”

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Signage around the home was not always dementia friendly. For example, some bedrooms did not have labelling or imagery which would make it easier for people to locate them. Information about food and drink choices was not displayed in easy-to-read formats.

The service could not always evidence how updates to the service was shared with people or their relatives.

Staff had received data protection training and understand data protection requirements.

The service 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.

Although people told us they felt able to raise issues and that the service updated them about changes in the service, there was no evidence people were involved in resident’s meetings or completing surveys about the quality of care.

Although staff meetings were taking place, the service could not always evidence how staff had been able to raise issues or suggest improvements. Staff meeting minutes had not always been recorded and shared with staff.

We saw evidence of the registered manager responding to and acting on complaints in a timely way and using the duty of candour, however the complaints log used by the service was not always up to date.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service had systems in place to ensure people had regular access to medical professionals. For example, health partners visited the service regularly to review people’s health needs.

Reasonable adjustments had been made to ensure people could access the premises. For example, where people used a wheelchair to mobilise, there was a lift available to access all areas. Mobility aids and specialist equipment was made available to people where required.

The service had a plan in place to install an additional grab rail on the main stairway to ensure people could use it more freely.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality and upheld people’s rights, and the service sought to provide a person-centred service that acknowledged people’s differences.

Staff and managers expressed a commitment to ensuring people did not face discrimination and had equal opportunities within and outside the home.Staff had received equality and diversity training.

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. One relative told us regarding end-of-life care, “The care for [person] was very good. Staff let us come and go when we wanted. We thanked them for looking after them so well and they kept us up to date with everything.”

Staff worked collaboratively with the district nursing team to ensure people’s end of life needs were met. One professional visiting the service told us, “Staff have done an excellent job with end-of-life care and families have been very involved.”

Care plans included information about people’s end-of-life preferences and staff had received training in end-of-life care.