Rosecroft Residential 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 68 (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 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.

People’s care plans did not always include person centred information about their preferences. One person required specific approaches from staff to reduce anxiety during care interventions. However, their care plan contained subjective language which could be interpreted differently by staff. This meant there was a risk the person would receive inconsistent support.

People’s social, cultural and communication needs were not always sufficiently recorded in their care plans.

However, when we spoke with staff, they appeared to have a good knowledge of people’s individual preferences and support needs.

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

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies including GP practices. They worked particularly closely with the district nursing team and the Care Home Education Support Service (CHESS).

One professional visiting the service told us, “[Registered manager] is very good at working with us and puts things in place following our recommendations. This includes equipment, pressure relief and training when needed. The home liaises with us really well regarding people’s skin, dressings, and catheter care.”

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

We saw staff communicate with people in an appropriate way, speaking clearly and allowing people time to respond, where required.

The service kept people, and their relatives informed of events via social media and newsletters.

The service 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.

People felt they were involved in their care. One relative told us, “[Registered manager] is fantastic and has a really nice team. If you raise anything with them, they don’t fob you off, they come back to you.” Another relative told us, “They’ve been very good at communicating with us and keeping us informed.”

The service had systems in place to enable people and their relatives to give feedback, share ideas or make complaints.

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

The service had systems in place to ensure people had regular access to medical professionals. For example, specialist health agencies visited the service regularly to review people’s health needs.

Reasonable adjustments had been made to ensure people could access the premises. For example, where people used a wheelchair to mobilise, there was a lift available to access all areas. Mobility aids and specialist equipment was made available to people where required.

Carer uniforms had been changed to be more visible for people living with dementia. Digital activities were provided for people living with dementia via a ‘Rainbow TV’.”

We discussed with the registered manager how they could create a dementia friendly living environment. For example, through decorations, imagery and lighting.

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.

Staff and managers expressed a commitment to ensuring people did not face discrimination and had equal opportunities within and outside the home.Staff had received equality and diversity training.

We discussed with the registered manager how to maximise the quality of life for people who have a learning disability. They then requested support from the community learning disability team to consider how to do this.

People were not always 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.

People’s care plans did not always include information about people’s wishes, including their goals and aspirations or end of life preferences.

However, the service worked closely with the community nursing team when people required end of life support. One visiting professional told us, “I’ve found them to be very caring and helpful during people’s end of life care. Family can stay, and staff are responsive, contacting us when needed.”