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 changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The management team continued to embed and promote a person-centred culture throughout the service. Staff demonstrated a stronger focus on meaningful communication, taking time to understand what was important to each person and ensuring their individual wishes, preferences, and choices were respected when planning and delivering care and support.

Care plans had been reviewed and updated to include more detailed, person-centred information. They provided a clearer reflection of people’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs.

People who used the service, along with their relatives, were actively involved in reviewing care and sharing their views about the support provided. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with people commenting favourably on the quality of care they received, and the improvements made within the service. Comments included, "I'm happy here. The staff are very good they look after us well there, always someone around" and "(Person's name) is very happy there, and as a family we are completely confident that they are safe and receiving the best possible care."

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The management team engaged well with external professionals and made referrals for people in a timely manner. However, records completed by staff did not always match the agreed care. For example, one person who required 2-3 hourly positional changes received 3 in one hour and then wait 4 hours for the next.

People, relatives and health care professionals provided positive feedback about the service and the improvements they had seen since the last assessment. Comments included, "I have seen (Person's name) care plan and have been involved in their reviews. Communication from the staff is now excellent; if I ring, someone is always available to speak with me" and "We have seen a big improvement in relation to communication from the service."

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider has improved the way it supports people with their communication and information needs by strengthening its use of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS).

Information was available in accessible formats. For example, menus included clear pictures and visual prompts, helping people, including those living with dementia, to better understand their options and make informed choices.

Staff continued to assess and record people’s communication needs in their care plans. These assessments are now more detailed and provide better information about how sensory impairments, such as sight or hearing loss, may affect individuals and what support they need to communicate effectively.

The provider made arrangements for people to share feedback, ideas and concerns about their care, treatment and support. It was not always evident what action had been taken in response to feedback received. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were given opportunities to discuss their care and share their views. The provider had carried out surveys and reviews to gather feedback from people; however, it was not evident how this feedback had been used or what actions had been taken in response to the comments and suggestions received.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Improvements had been made to ensure people could get help when they needed it. People had access to call bells, and where this was not suitable, other arrangements were in place so they could easily ask for assistance.

Staff sought medical advice when people needed it and responded promptly to changes in their health.

People were able to access the service easily and without any difficulties. The building was fully accessible, and people could receive support from visiting healthcare and other professionals when needed without any problems.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

There had been improvements in the activities available for people. People told us they enjoyed taking part and we saw more people were going out into the community to enjoy activities and social opportunities.

Relatives spoke positively about events such as family fun days, telling us these provided enjoyable opportunities to spend time together. This included birthday events and a family fun day. Staff had increased the range of activities on offer and people were enjoying more things that were important to them.

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.