Rose Villa Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This key question was last rated good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity.

This service scored 50 (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 always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Staff did not always recognise how to promote dignity. We observed care records completed by staff were not respectful of people and contained comments regarding their lack of time to assist people. Interactions between staff and people were positive. However, these interactions were task focused and did not always support people's health or wellbeing.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Care plans and risk assessments were not always up to date consistent or contain detailed information in respect of people’s individual needs, likes and preferences. Staff knew people well, however they did not always respond to people in an appropriate manner. For example, we observed staff supporting one person with the use of equipment. This person was clearly distressed, and staff did not provide any reassurance to this person or communicate effectively. People and their relatives told us staff provided support when they needed it. Comments included, “I know the right time to use my buzzer as some times of day are busier than others so if I need anything I wait until the quieter times of the day to ask” and “Staff always listen and help, my relative is very particular in the way things are done.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People's preferences were not always respected. One person told us "I was hoping for a shower today, but I don’t suppose I will get one." This person told us they would prefer to have 2 showers a week. When we reviewed this person’s care records, we identified this person had gone 37 days without receiving support to shower. Areas of the environment did not support people to remain independent. For example, a downstairs toilet did not have any toilet roll available. Relatives felt that staff did not always encourage people to remain independent. One relative told us, "They do not make much effort to get [relative name] out of bed" another said, "[Relative name] has gone back a step and is staying in bed most of the time." The service provided activities to meet people's needs, however this was only in a morning. During the afternoon people sat in communal areas with a lack of stimulation and little staff presence.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staff did not recognise where people required support. We observed one person sat within the communal area who was clearly distressed, staff did not acknowledge or offer emotional support to this person. Staff failed to provide timely assistance to a person who requested to go to the toilet. This person was extremely distressed when staff supported them.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff told us they did not feel supported within their role. Comments from staff included, "I raised things, but nothing gets done about it" and "The previous manager wasn’t great and now they have left, things are not getting better." Records showed that staff did not always receive regular supervision meetings. Staff meetings were completed but they did not provide opportunities for staff to give feedback or discuss any concerns they may have.