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

This service scored 57 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs

Staff were aware of people’s individual personalities; however, they did not proactively encourage or involve people in activities that were meaningful to them. Staff missed opportunities to provide person‑centred care because they did not always communicate effectively with people to understand what really mattered to them.

Care plans did not always contain person-centred information about people and did not fully reflect people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs. This meant the service did not always give people options or choices on how their care was delivered or the most appropriate care and treatment to meet their individual needs.

The manager was in the process of updating all care plans at the service for people, to ensure they reflected up to date information. People were given opportunities to review their care and provide feedback.

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.

Whilst we found that staff engaged with some external professionals and made referrals for people, we could not be assured that people always consistently received timely support when concerns were raised by staff.

Relatives and health and social care professionals provided positive feedback about the service. One relative told us, “The staff are very good at picking up on changes with [relative name], they [staff] know a change in their behaviour can indicate concerns with their health and straight away they will send a sample off and get the GP for treatment."

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider did not always promote the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) or have systems in place to support this. For example, menus displayed were written and did not have pictures to support people living with dementia to fully understand them.

Some easy read notices were displayed at the service. However, the pictures used were quite small and did not support accessible information standards.

People's communication needs were assessed and recorded within care plans, however, information recorded was brief and did not fully explore the impact sensory loss, such as reduced vision, may have on a person.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were provided opportunities to discuss their care and provide feedback. The provider had conducted surveys and reviews with people to discuss their opinions; however, it was not clear what actions had been taken to address the feedback and comments provided.

The manager was responsive to people when they express their wishes. For example, the manager took action to address concerns raised on behalf of people during the assessment.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Some people did not have access to call bells, which meant they were unable to call for help if needed. Whilst risk assessments were in place, the provider had not considered any alternative control measures to support these people to call for assistance if they required it.

Care records did contain evidence of medical advice been sought for people. However, staff did not always take timely action to address changes in people's health needs.

Staff understood arrangements for requesting support for people out of hours.

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.

An activities board was in place; however, on the first day of the assessment no information had been displayed. We also observed limited stimulation or meaningful activities for people who chose to remain in their bedrooms.

Staff did not always take into account the wide age range of people using the service when planning activities. One person told us, “I rarely go downstairs because being around much older people affects my mental health. It reminds me of where I am in life, and I don’t have to think about that when I stay in my own room.”

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 provider made sure people had opportunities to discuss their end‑of‑life wishes. When individuals chose to share their preferences, these were recorded in their care plans.