Watermead Rose Care 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.This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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’s care and support plans addressed their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and referred to their care and support plans to ensure they were met in the way people wanted.

People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in planning and making decisions about people’s care and support. A relative told us they had recently been involved in their family member’s care plan review.

Care plans were detailed, personalised, and regularly reviewed and updated. A staff member worker told us people’s care plans was the ‘blueprint’ for how their care was provided. They said, “All information is in the care plan – we will read it, we have time to read it - and then we deliver the care.”

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 living at Watermead Rose had varied care and support needs. Staff worked with visiting health and social care professionals to ensure their needs were identified and met. Information was appropriately shared to ensure people had the care and support they required.

Records showed people had continuity of care and support. Referral were made and followed up. Where necessary staff received training and advice from specialists, for example the Huntington's Disease Association.

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

Information about the service, for example the welcome pack, was translated into multiple languages to ensure it met the needs of the multicultural community. Information was also available in large print and staff were willing to read it to people who preferred this.

Information was shared with people in the way they wanted. For example, the weekly activities schedule was displayed in communal areas and some people had a copy in their rooms for ease of access.

Care and support plans included information on how best to communicate with individual people. Staff used pictures and signs if people found these useful. Some staff were multilingualand used their skills to ensure people received information in their preferred language.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People using the service and relatives could use the complaints procedure in the service user guide if they had a concern. They could also speak to the registered manager or to any staff member. A relative said, “If you have a concern, they’ll listen and will try to address it.” A second relative described how they had had the opportunity to discuss concerns with staff and as a result these had been resolved. People and relatives also had the opportunity to speak up or make a complaint at residents and relatives meetings.

If people wanted to discuss concerns with another person using the service, they could speak with Watermead Rose’s resident ambassador. The resident ambassador (a person using the service) told us people could speak with them in private and confidentially. They were also prepared to advocate for the person if they didn’t want to raise a concern themselves.

Complaints were logged along with the action taken to resolve them and the outcome. Complainants' satisfaction checks were completed to ensure people were satisfied with how their complaint was dealt with.

Managers and staff ensured there were no barriers to people sharing feedback or raising complaints. They did this by creating communication care plans for people which set out how they preferred to make their views known, for example by using flash cards, signs, or by speaking with staff in their language of choice.

The service had a diverse service user group from a range of different communities. To meet people’s communication needs, the service employed an equally diverse staff group who spoke a range of languages. This helped to ensure people’s communication and cultural needs were met.

People using the service were involved in staff interviews which allowed them to become acquainted with potential staff prior to them commencing employment. They also gave them the opportunity to ask interview questions that were important to them.

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

Care and nursing staff were on site 24/7 and people had call bells or pendant alarms to summon assistance. If people were unable to call for assistance themselves, staff checked them regularly to ensure they were comfortable and safe.

Staff knew who to contact in an emergency if people needed support from external healthcare professionals. Staff were trained in first aid and knew how to respond if a person appeared unwell or injured.

Care and support plans ensured staff had an overview of people’s needs and any barriers they might experience in receiving the care, support and treatment. This included making reasonable adjustments for people, addressing communication barriers, and ensuring the premises people used were accessible.

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. They made reasonable adjustments for disabled people, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises.

People with communication needs were included in all aspects of the service. For example, staff used flash cards to communicate with a person and enable them to make choices about their care, meals and activities.

If people spent most of their time in bed, due to health issues, the activities coordinator visited them regularly and planned suitable activities for them. For example, a person learning to use technology was having regular laptop sessions in their room.

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 lives. People’s choices and what mattered to them was delivered through personalised care plans.

People and relatives were involved in all decisions about end of life care and support. A relative said, “We have a meeting every 3 months. That’s how we got to this [end of life] stage of caring. The doctor came out and we all sat and had a chat.”

Nursing staff had specialist training to provide end of life care and support to people. They were trained to recognise the signs when a person was becoming palliative and had the skills and knowledge to safely and effectively administer medicines through syringe drivers.

A local hospice provided additional end of life training and advice to care and nursing staff. The service had a range of resources they could use to promote end of life discussions with people who wished to talk about their care and support options.