Rose Villa Nursing Home

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

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 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.

The service failed to provide person-centred care. People's care plans did not reflect their individual preferences around their care. Staff did not have suitable guidance to inform them about people’s individual needs. Care records did not identify anything about people's history, past employment, hobbies or past times. Where specific details were recorded in people's care plans, this was not adhered to. For example, records had not always been completed for people who needed to be observed regularly to check on their safety or to reposition them. This meant we could not be sure they were receiving individual care.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Care plans contained basic information and although reviews were recorded there was minimal evidence of care plans being updated or developed when people's needs changed. For example, people who had developed pressure damage did not have a skin management records in place to inform staff on how to promote healing. One person was admitted to the service with advice from a health professional to receive 2 hourly positional changes. Records showed that advice was not always followed. Inconsistent recording did not support people's continuity of care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider had not taken any steps to comply with the Accessible Information Standard to identify, record or share people’s communication needs. For example, there was no guidance for staff about how to communicate with one person, whose first language was not English. Therefore, they were not able to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care.

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. The provider did not seek feedback from people or their relatives in the running of the service. Whilst relatives told us the service would contact them regarding their loved ones care and any changes there was no evidence that people were involved in the care planning process.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were not provided with individualised care and support. Staff did not always recognise where people required access to external health services for people. For example, staff did not seek specialist advice for people whose skin condition continued to deteriorate.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. The provider did not ensure records were reflective of people's health, wellbeing and diverse needs. Staff did not receive training around equality and diversity to ensure they could work in an inclusive way or challenge any issues of inequality.

People were not always 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. Care plans reviewed did not evidence that people's wishes for the future were explored.