Rosedene 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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.

People received personalised care. People and their relatives participated in assessments and care planning. Care plans contained people’s preferences for care and support. For example, one person’s care detailed how they wanted to be supported when distressed. Another person’s care records noted their preference for support when they presented with symptoms related to their health condition.

Care records noted people’s personal histories including details they chose to share about their families, former occupations, important life event, interests and hobbies. This information enabled staff to have meaningful conversations with people and identify potential activities of interest.

The service operated a resident of the day arrangement. This involved one person receiving an elevated level of attention from most departments. For example, domestic staff did a deep clean of their room, kitchen staff made a special dish of their choosing and care staff supported people to engage in a chosen activity. Planning for each person’s Resident of the day as undertaken by keyworkers in partnership with people. Keyworkers are members of staff with specific responsibilities for individual people. These included maintaining contact with loved ones, planning activities, personalising bedrooms and one to one time.

At the time of the inspection the service did not have an activity coordinator in post. A member of staff was covering the position and was enthusiastic about the role. Whilst we observed periods of time in which people were neither active, nor engaged we saw group activities and individual activities taking place. For example, staff took large, wheeled specialist computers to people. The touch screen device enabled people to engage in activities such as games which supported, hand-eye coordination, memory and via music and film. Staff said this system particularly benefited people who chose not to leave their bedrooms.

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 provider worked in partnership with health and social care services to assess and meet people’s needs. People’s needs were assessed. When required, assessments were undertaken by healthcare professionals. Their guidance was incorporated into people’s care plans and followed by staff. People, their relatives, staff and healthcare professionals participated in reviews of people’s health, care and support.

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

People received information in accessible formats. For example, the activities provided were displayed in a picture format for people to see and understand. Similarly, the menus contained pictures of the dishes offered. This enabled people to make informed food choices. People could check who the nurses and staff on shift were by checking the names and photographs on display.

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 gathered people’s views through feedback, surveys, a suggestion box and individual reviews. The provider acted on this information to improve people’s experience of care and support.

The provider had a complaints policy in place. One healthcare professional told us, “When relatives raise requests or concerns, the team is usually very cooperative. If any complaints arise, they address them promptly and arrange meetings with the next of kin. Most issues raised are resolved effectively.” The provider responded to complaints in line with their procedure and reviewed complaints for patterns and trends.

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

The provider ensured equity in access. People’s needs were assessed and care plans provided staff with guidance on meeting their individual needs. One member of staff told us, “People have different needs and capacity. Some people need a little bit of support, some need a lot.” The support people required varied. For example, some people required staff to support them using a wheelchair, others required staff to supervise them when using a walking frame, whilst other people could walk independently without staff observation. The provider demonstrated equity by assessing everyone’s mobility needs.

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.

Care records contained outcomes for people. These were unique to the individual. Outcomes varied for people based upon their individual needs and preferences. Outcomes were discussed with people, relatives and healthcare professionals at care reviews, when new objectives were set.

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 supported people to plan for the future. People’s needs were assessed and changing needs were responded to. Where people were identified as requiring end of life care, their needs were assessed by healthcare specialists to ensure that anxiety and pain were managed and people’s preferences were met. People had end of life care plans in place which were personalised, and they received support at the service from the GP and a local hospice. The service supported relatives to visit dying relatives and the clinical lead liaised with healthcare professionals to ensure that people’s symptoms were managed compassionately and effectively.