Roseacre

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 regulations in relation to person-centred care, safe care and governance at the service.

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 did not make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

When new people moved into the service, managers reviewed any information provided by the local authority or other agencies. However, they did not always meet with people and/or their families to gain an understanding of their needs and preferences. A senior member of staff told us the information they relied on had not always provided a rounded picture of the person. This meant the service had minimal understanding of people needs and preferences before agreeing to provider support.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did not always follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

One person was cared for in bed and required support to move to mitigate the risk of skin breakdown. Care records stated they should be moved every 4 hours. Records indicated this was not always being completed. For example, on 1 November 2025 staff supported the person to move at 15:30hrs. The next record of the support being provided was on 2 November 2025 at 07:30hrs, a period of 16 hours. Although we did not identify any impact, this put the person at potential risk of harm.
The manager told us they had been given additional guidance by tissue viability nurses and were arranging for them to provide training relating to skin care.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.
Handovers were completed between shifts so staff were aware of any changes in people’s needs. A relative told us staff shared information appropriately stating, “They look like a good team. They communicate well with each other.”
A new staff role had been created specifically to support people at mealtimes. This member of staff recorded what people had eaten and drank, freeing up care staff to carry out personal care tasks. A member of staff commented, “[Name’s] role is great because she gets to know people and has that clear picture of and responsibility for nutrition. She knows what people like.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were provided with a varied and well-balanced diet. Kitchen staff had a good understanding of people’s nutritional needs and planned menus accordingly. A relative commented, “The food is amazing it smells delicious and looks really good; they have two courses with decent portions and afternoon snacks.”

People did not have a lot to occupy them, this is important for people’s mental health and emotional well-being. An activity co-ordinator was employed one day a week to organise structured craft activities. Any other activities were ad-hoc and depended on staff having time to spend with people. Most people spent the majority of time in a shared area with a TV on. We asked one person if they had enough to do, they responded, “Question mark! Thing is I have been busy all my life, it’s coming down to having very little to do.”

There were limited opportunities for gentle exercise. The activity co-ordinator mainly focused on craft activities. There had been no recent opportunities for chair exercises or similar although a manager told us this had been organised in the past. These types of exercises can help improve mobility and prevent falls. The manager told us they were planning to restart these soon.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Some aspects of people’s health was monitored to help staff quickly identify if their health was deteriorating. The monitoring records had not been consistently or accurately completed. For example, bowel records showed multiple, consecutive days where nothing had been recorded. This meant the records did not provide the required information to help monitor people’s health. Two people had pressure mattresses, these were not routinely checked to make sure they remained at the correct setting. We discussed this with the manager who assured us they would address both issues.

People had been regularly weighed. Records showed one person had lost 7kgs over a month. The manager told us they had not been told of the weight loss. They checked the person again and were able to assure us the person had since put some weight back on. However, we were concerned staff were unaware when they needed to make the manager and health professionals aware of any changes in people’s well-being.

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

Some people, who were able to and had capacity, had signed to indicate they consented to aspects of their care and the use of photographs.

Staff asked people before providing personal care and were respectful of the choices people made.