Rose Villa Nursing Home

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 46 (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. An effective system was not in place to ensure best practice guidance was followed when assessing people's needs and providing care. We identified shortfalls in relation to the assessment of risk, care planning and medicines management. People’s needs were not appropriately assessed or recorded. Where needs had been identified, the care records did not always contain sufficient information to ensure people received appropriate support. One person had been at the service for 22 days and no care plans or risk assessment had been completed for this person. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis however people and their relatives were not always involved in this process.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People received care from staff who knew them well. However, staff did not always follow peoples planned care and records did not always document that care was carried out as planned. For example, in relation to pressure area care, one person required two hourly positional changes throughout the day. Records did not always evidence this happened.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. Records did not reflect the service worked well across teams. Records did not show recommendations from health professionals were followed up. A visiting health professional expressed a lack of confidence in the service to follow professional advice.

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. System and processes were not in place to support people's health and wellbeing. Cares plans and risk assessments did not contain sufficient information to enable staff to provide effective care and support.

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. Records did not evidence people had received treatment that met their needs and was in line with the healthcare professional's instruction. For example, health professional’s advice to monitor one person's coughing was not consistently completed and staff were unsure if they should be completing these records. We observed this person persistently coughing and no further action was taken by staff as recommended by health professionals.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. The service ensured appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Where people had conditions recorded in their authorisation we could not find evidence these conditions had been actioned where required. Capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not decision specific and there was little evidence the service has considered the least restrictive options.