Roseside

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Throughout our inspection we observed staff supporting people’s needs in a prompt, warm manner. It was obvious people felt comfortable in the company of staff and staff knew people and their needs well. When we asked people if they were treated with kindness people told us, “Oh yes, I’d have something to say if they didn’t”, “Yes, I am treated with dignity” and “It’s a nice place and can talk to them [staff].” A relative confirmed, “The staff are so caring and show compassion, they are so patient with [Name].”

Staff maintained people’s dignity and people looked well dressed and cared for. One member of staff told us, “People are well taken care of here.”

For one person who was visibly distressed, we saw staff support the person in the sensory room and talked with them in a comforting and reassuring way. This had the effect of calming the person down and making them feel more at ease.

Some staff had taken on the responsibility of being a dignity or values champion to ensure a positive living and working culture at the home.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans contained person-centred information about people’s life story which helped staff get to know people as a person, and the person they were before their admittance to the home.

People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. Families and friends were able to visit their loved ones at any time. People had a say in how they spent their day and could choose when they went to bed, and when they got up. Although a wide range of recreational activities was on offer, if people preferred to spend time alone, this was respected.

Activities were also used in a therapeutic way. People were consulted about what they wanted to do and what was important to them. Staff then worked hard to make this happen. For example, one person had been supported to attend a football match for the team they supported. Another person had been supported to attend a music concert of their choosing. The participation in these activities had a positive impact on the person being supported.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People had a say over their own care and treatment, which helped to promote their independence and choice. People’s daily written records demonstrated people had genuine choice and control over their care and support and how they wanted to spend their day.

Staff were also keen to tell us they promoted people’s independence and provided choice to people wherever they could.

Memory boxes were located outside of some people’s rooms, this helped people living with dementia and/or a cognitive impairment navigate to their own rooms independently.

A visiting health professional shared an example of how a person had become more independent as a direct result of staff support, “Initially, the person was on enhanced observations on admission, with collaborative working and engagement from the manager and staff team, we were able to reduce to 15-minute observations successfully whilst maintaining safety.”

Although we were assured the provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes, we could not always be assured staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

During our inspection, we observed a person who had been sat alone in a communal lounge without any staff intervention for a prolonged period of time. The person was unable to use a call bell to alert staff for assistance. We spoke to the provider about this who confirmed they would ensure staff were better deployed to ensure any situations like this were avoided.

However, daily care records showed the support provided to people was in accordance with the support outlined in their care plan, which demonstrated staff responded to people’s needs in a timely way.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We received positive feedback from staff who told us the provider valued and respected their well-being. Staff told us the provider offered them the support they required to help ensure the delivery of person-centred care.

There was a multifaith room and a ‘mental health corner’ for both staff and people to use to help with mindfulness and well-being. Some members of staff were mental health first aiders and were available to help support staff at any time.

A topic of the month was discussed which either directly linked to the needs of staff and/or the needs of people, for example, topics such as men’s mental health and menopause had been discussed. This not only helped increased staff’s knowledge and awareness but had a positive effect on their well-being.

The provider operated an ‘Employee of the Month’ scheme where positive practice was celebrated and rewarded.