Roseacre

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person centred-care.

This service scored 62 (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 work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Three people had recently moved into Roseacre, none of them had a completed care plan. Two of these people had been living at the service for 2 months. Staff did not have access to the information they needed to support people safely and in line with their preferences.

The manager had identified care plans as an area for improvement and was in the process of updating them. The new format included details on people’s preferred routines, their personal histories and any identified risks.

Care plans for established residents had not been updated for several months and we could not be assured they were an accurate reflection of people’s current needs. There was no evidence people had been involved in the care planning process. One relative told us they had not been involved initially but had complained about this and this had been addressed. Comments included; “I don’t know about the care plan. When they first went in, I told them about likes and dislikes. We have not had an official review of the care plan” and “I wasn’t involved and I am not aware of it.”

Managers were aware the provider care plans did not accurately reflect people’s current needs. They had begun developing a new care planning system prior to the inspection. We saw an example of one updated care plan. This contained person-centred information about people’s backgrounds, preferred routines, likes and dislikes. The manager told us they were talking to relatives and friends to gather as much information about people as possible.

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

A health care professional told us the service contacted them when necessary. They commented, “The care staff at Roseacre contact [name of organisation] appropriately with any medical concerns.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information about raising complaints was attached to bedroom doors. Relatives told us any concerns raised had been listened to and addressed. One commented, “If I see something has not been done, I speak to them and they sort it out straight away.”

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 were limited systems for formally gathering people’s views. Care plan reviews had not been held for several months. Resident and relative meetings were not organised. However, records showed relatives had been asked for their feedback by means of a survey.

The small number of updated care plans contained information about any support people needed with communication, such as glasses or hearing aids.

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

People were supported to attend appointments and have access to other professionals when they needed to.

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.

One person chose to stay in their room for long periods, putting themselves at risk of social isolation. Staff tried to encourage them to spend time in communal areas, but this was difficult. The manager told us they were introducing an activities recording sheet specifically for this person to capture what was being offered and what had worked well.

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.

The new manager had started to review care plans and develop new ones. As part of this process, they were gathering information about people’s wishes at the end of their lives. They had talked to friends of one resident to establish what their wishes were. Care plans contained information about the level of treatment people wanted if they became unwell.