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 changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Improvements had been made to ensure people's needs were regularly assessed and well understood. Information identified through risk assessments was accurately reflected in care plans, helping staff provide safe and effective support. For people at risk of falls, clear guidance was in place to help staff reduce risks and deliver safe, personalised care.

Staff communicated effectively with people and involved them in decisions about their care and support. People's wishes, choices, and preferences were understood, respected, and reflected in the support they received.

The management team had implemented a structured programme of care plan reviews to ensure records remained accurate, up to date, and fully reflected people's needs, risks, preferences, and outcomes.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider had taken steps to improve how people’s care and support were planned and delivered, working closely with each person to make sure their needs and wishes were understood. Care plans had been reviewed and updated to include more personalised information, giving a clearer picture of what mattered most to people, their preferences, their goals, and how they wanted to live their daily lives.

Records now showed greater attention to people’s individual wishes and choices, including their cultural, social, and emotional needs. When people shared information about their sexual orientation and any related preferences, these were respected and supported by staff in their day-to-day care. This information was also recorded more clearly in care plans, helping to ensure people received support that reflected who they are and what is important to them.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Partnership working had improved, with timely referrals made to health professionals and records accurately reflecting people's current needs and recommendations.

Teamworking had also strengthened, with staff working more collaboratively and supporting one another effectively, including new and agency staff. Comments from staff included, "The staff team are great, and we work together well" and "We have some brilliant staff."

A healthcare professional told us that working together with the service had improved. They spoke very positively about the registered manager and staff, praising their teamwork, communication, and commitment to providing good care.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The registered manager had taken effective action to address the issues identified at the previous assessment. People were offered regular opportunities to go out when they wished, maintain relationships, and take part in activities that were important to them. Staff responded positively to requests and worked flexibly to support people's choices. For example, we observed a staff member who was in the middle of completing a task immediately stop to support a person who requested assistance to use the toilet.

Staff engaged with people on a more meaningful way and we observed staff supporting people to make healthy choices to promote their health and wellbeing.

Food menus were available and provided a variety of choice. One person told us, "The food is nice and healthy. Some similar things but I'm sure if you wanted something different, they would do it. They (staff) are very good."

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.

People's care was not always monitored or delivered in line with their assessed needs. We identified this issue during our previous assessment. Although the registered manager had introduced additional checks and some improvements had been made. The systems used to record and monitor care were not always effective.

For example, the monitoring functions within the electronic care planning system were not working properly. As a result, staff recorded certain care tasks in daily notes instead. This made it difficult for the management team to track whether these tasks had been completed as set out in people's care plans.

We discussed this with the deputy manager, who told us they would introduce a paper-based recording system to enable staff to document these tasks and allow managers to monitor them more effectively.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care. Records confirmed that consent was obtained, and when individuals lacked capacity, decisions were made in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had received MCA training and completed the necessary assessments for care-related decisions, including capacity assessments and best‑interest decision documentation.

During our assessment site visits, we observed staff offering people choices.