Rothsay Grange

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.

Staff we spoke with understood what person-centred care meant. For example, one staff member said, “It’s about giving people their choice.” One person told us, “Staff understand my needs. Staff are all okay.” Relatives said they felt the staff knew about people living at the service and about their lives prior to moving there. One person’s relative said, “I think they understand [name’s] needs well. Most of the staff know [name’s] strengths and weaknesses.”

Care plans we reviewed were detailed and provided information on people’s choices and preferences for how they wanted staff to support them, including any preference for male or female staff to support them. Information about health conditions was recorded and provided clear guidance for staff.

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.

People had access to a variety of professional support both internally and externally. People were seen regularly by the GP, who was also available for staff to contact between visits. People were supported to attend healthcare appointments. Where people needed access to the hospital this was arranged and coordinated with families. We saw records of people being reviewed by professionals such as the GP, speech and language therapist (SALT) and the palliative care team. One professional told us, “They are a very capable home and have managed some very complex [conditions] very well in the past.”

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

People had their communication needs assessed. When people had difficulties communicating, care plans informed staff how to ensure people were able to be understood. For example, we observed staff crouching down to people’s eye level when communicating with them. When people used aids for communication, these were listed within the plans and any support people needed to use them. For example, this included staff needing to change batteries in hearing aids or keeping people’s glasses clean.

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.

Regular resident and relative’s meetings took place, and we saw minutes of these. There was a ‘you said, we did’ board on display in the entrance which showed how the service acted on feedback. For example, people had requested more activities specifically for men, and as a result, a men’s club had been started. Feedback was also sought via surveys. One person’s relative said, “They did send a questionnaire, which we filled out online, and we put 10 for everything because they are absolutely excellent. It's a fantastic home and we are so glad that we chose it for [relative].” We reviewed the latest survey results and saw satisfaction rates were high and positive feedback had been given.

The service had resident ambassadors. One person’s relatives said, “They have a resident ambassador who could be useful for people who perhaps don't want to talk to the staff about something that they're worried about.”

People told us they felt comfortable speaking with staff. One person said, “If I have a question, I ask the nurses. Everyone is very good. [Staff names] are extremely helpful and very approachable. They are both easy to talk to.” There was a complaints procedure in place. Complaints had been logged, investigated and responded to appropriately.

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

People had access to the equipment they needed. Two lifts were available to move freely between floors. Wide corridors and open spaces meant mobility aids could be easily accommodated and ensured people could move around easily.

People with protected characteristics were supported to have equitable access to services. For example, people with a disability which impacted their ability to leave the home were supported to access health services to meet their individual 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.

Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights to help them understand equality and address discrimination. People’s cultural and spiritual choices were respected. People were supported to attend religious services of their choice.

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.

Staff had documented people’s wishes around their future care, including their preferences for where they wanted to be at the end of their lives. Staff had received training specific to end of life care and the provider had a named end-of-life champion who had received additional training to support people and staff with good practice guidance. The manager said, “Regionally within our homes we do share good practise. For example, we're going to be doing the 6 steps of end of life care.” This is a programme aimed at improving end of life care provided by care homes and it’s staff, that encompasses the philosophy of palliative care.

The service had good links with the local palliative care team.