Rosegarth Residential

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 67 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Staff delivered care in line with best practice, including responding to preferences and offering alternatives at mealtimes. However, we found inconsistencies in documentation and practice around modified diets and fluids. For example, information held by the kitchen did not accurately correspond to that in one person’s care plan, and some people received repositioning care without this being fully documented in their care plans. We brought this to the attention of the registered manager who took immediate action to rectify these inconsistencies.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service monitored outcomes through daily records and reviews, and care planning showed involvement from external professionals with staff following their guidance. However, gaps in recording (particularly in relation to repositioning and pressure relief) reduced assurance that staff consistently monitored and responded to outcomes linked to known risks. The registered manager identified this was due to how staff were using the electronic care planning system and took action to rectify this recording.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.