Rosecroft Residential 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective.

Care plans did not always include up to date, accurate and consistent information; and some information was found to have been repeated in various sections of the care plan. For example, where 1 person’s care plan included information in the communication section, this same information was repeated in their daily lifestyle, death and dying and medication sections.

Some care plans lacked the necessary information about people’s needs and how staff should manage these.

However, people and relatives had been involved in care planning and reviews.

The service 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.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. One relative told us, “The food is really good, and [person] is eating well. They have a choice and it’s freshly cooked. They get drinks and snacks during the day.”

People had protected mealtimes and were happy with the food and drink available. One relative told us, “They have protected mealtimes and I think [person] is eating well. They’ve put on weight and gained a bit of strength due to eating.”

Staff knew people’s swallowing risks. However, we discussed with the registered manager the need to ensure people’s eating and drinking care plans included consistent information about their swallowing needs.

The service 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.

Staff attended handover meetings to ensure updates about people’s needs were communicated across the whole team. The management team also kept the staff team updated about events via a messaging system.

Staff told us they worked well together. One staff member told us, “We are a good team and work well together. We are proud. We come to work and feel like we’ve made a difference in people’s lives.”

Visiting professionals spoke highly of how the staff at the home worked with each other and with external services. One professional told us, “We have a really good working relationship with the home.”

The service 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.

We saw evidence the service sought support from healthcare professionals when they identified people could benefit from this. When people were unwell, records showed that staff facilitated access to the GP or other healthcare agencies quickly.

We observed various healthcare professionals visiting people over the course of our onsite inspection. One visiting professional told us, “Staff are very proactive. Staff came to us [when concerned about 1 person’s skin] and questioned whether something was a moisture lesion. This led to positive discussions with staff.” Another professional told us, “The home tries, and works with people for as long as possible. They don't just turf them out.”

Systems were in place to monitor people’s care and treatment. However, records were not always completed consistently.

The care home staff and visiting professionals we spoke with expressed people were monitored where required and had good outcomes. However, we found systems in place to monitor people’s care and identify issues were not always effective.

One person had visited the dentist for treatment and staff were required to record when they had been supported to clean their teeth. However, this was not done consistently. This meant there was a risk issues would not be identified or followed up.

Where 1 person was given ‘as required’ medication to manage their anxieties and distress, staff were not always recording the reasons for giving the medication or monitoring its effectiveness to enable review.

The service did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

CCTV was operated in a communal corridor, adjacent to the entrance of the care home, and captured images of people in their living environment. The service had not obtained consent from people about its usage and where people lacked mental capacity in relation to this, best interest decisions had not been documented. This meant the provider could not be assured that they had considered the requirements of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), people’s consent or dignity in relation to CCTV. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the law that sets out how personal information must be handled, ensuring it is used lawfully, kept secure, and only shared when necessary, while protecting people’s confidentiality and privacy.

The service was using other restrictive practices to keep people safe, however the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not always been followed. Where the service was required to assess people’s capacity and make best interest decisions, this was not always done.