Rose Belle

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 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.

It was not always clear if and when reviews were taking place with people. The provider had not evidenced when these were being completed, therefore we could not be assured the information in people’s care plans was the most up to date information. We also found that the language used was not always person centred. For example, using terms such as, “she said” or “he likes”. This has been fedback to the provider to make improvements to the way people’s information is written in their care plans. This had also been identified by the local authority from their recent involvement with the service.

During our onsite inspection, we observed that staff knew people and their needs well. We saw care plans did contain people’s likes and dislikes. Feedback we received from relatives was positive around being kept up to date, where appropriate about people’s needs. The provider will be implementing a reviewing tool, to ensure it is clear when reviews and updates to people’s care and support needs have taken place.

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.

There was good continuity of care at Rose Belle and there was a low turnover of staff with a stable staff team. We received positive feedback from external healthcare professionals and staff told us they would support people to attend health appointments where required. Staff communicated well with external health and social care professionals to support people’s needs.

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

People’s communication preferences were documented within their care plans, but it was not clear if this information had been recently updated. We discussed the accessible information standard (AIS) with the provider, who confirmed that at the time of our inspection, there was no one at Rose Belle who required information in a different format. The AIS is a legal requirement for organisations providing NHS and adult social care support to ensure people are provided with information in formats that support their specific needs, for example in easy read formats or larger print.

People’s information was kept secure and confidential.

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.

The provider had processes in place for people to be able to raise any concerns or complaints. The provider had 1:1 meetings in place with people to obtain their feedback of the service. People had access to the complaints form and the complaints policy. Feedback from people and their relatives was positive around being able to raise any concerns with management. A relative told us, “I know, if need be, I can make a complaint, I think that they would take it seriously and use it in a positive way to see if any changes need making.”

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

People and their relatives told us they were able to access the community without any restrictions. People were supported to visit people outside of the home. For example, we saw 1 person was supported to visit family at least once a month and how important this was for that person. People were supported to attend healthcare appointments and had access to staff 24 hours a day.

Care plans were accessible to staff, however due to the transition to using electronic care plans this could at times cause delays in staff accessing information due to the way care plans are currently stored.

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.

We did not identify any concerns or inconsistencies in people’s experiences of the service, during our onsite inspection. There was no evidence that anyone was treated less favourably, or that outcomes differed as a result of personal characteristics, background or support needs. Feedback we received was positive around the support provided by staff and people had access to external health providers and healthcare professionals. One relative told us, “I feel the service is doing well in providing quality care creating an environment where the needs of the individual who is cared for is taken into consideration.”

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.

At the time of this inspection visit no one was receiving end of life care.Care plans reviewed showed a good level of detail around people’s wishes and preferences around their end of life support. Through the 1:1 meetings with people, the provider had sought people’s views on any preferences for areas such as activities in the future, however it was not always clear of the ongoing impact this had on people.