Rossendale House 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 mostly made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. However, during our assessment we noted people were sat at the dining table for long periods of time. One person was sat in the same position for over 2 hours, still with their empty main meal plate in front of them. We observed some people becoming upset by the length of time they were waiting; however, we did see staff acting quickly to reassure people in a discreet manner. As mentioned in this report, the provider acted on this by employing more care staff.

Staff spoke of the importance of delivering person-centred care. Their comments included, “Care is tailored to people’s individual needs” and “People choose when they want to go to bed.” Care plans detailed, person-centred information to help guide staff on how to care for people in a way that they choose, however, some people and relatives we spoke to said they had not seen a care plan.

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. Relatives praised the staff team although some concerns were raised about a lack of reassurance they had when they visit their loved ones. Staff spoke about a solid staff team who worked together to provide the best possible outcomes for people. They said, “We all work as a team, since I started only 1 staff member has left. Staff tend to be happy here.”

We saw evidence of referrals being made to various healthcare professionals and care plans evidenced how the service acted on these outcomes and incorporated them into people’s care provision. One professional said, “I feel the care home is proactive within their capacity to implement care plans. They communicate very well with myself and provide frequent updates if there are any changes.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Relatives told us they were kept informed and up to date of any changes to care provision. They said, “I have noticed a big improvement in the communication from the home.” Staff spoke of the value of keeping information secure. They said, “We don’t disclose personal information with anyone else, only staff can access the electronic systems. We keep devices locked and on staff person at all times. They are all password protected and all offices are secured.” The service was following the Accessible Information Standards. The registered manager said, “We provide information in alternative formats where required, including large print and picture cards, and adapt our communication to meet each person’s needs.”

The provider at times 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. Relatives provided mixed feedback on how they were listened to. They said, “There were some teething problems and niggles, but I must admit since I sat down and spoke to (staff) there has been more consistency.” However, some concerns were raised about repeated concerns a relative had that were not acted upon.

Staff spoke of the actions they would take should a person have concerns. They said, “We always get feedback from families, if someone isn’t happy, depending on what it is I try to deal with it there and then, the (registered) manager always provides us with feedback.” We saw evidence of a compliments and complaints file where concerns were investigated, an outcome provided and actions on how the service could improve in the future. The registered manager said, “All complaints are taken seriously and responded to promptly in line with the policy.” The service had a supporting policy to manage complaints.

Surveys were undertaken by people and their relatives. The most recent results showed overall positive feedback including people were being treated with dignity, relatives were made to feel welcome in the service and staff worked well as a team.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The building was purpose built and benefited from bright, airy, wide corridors with grab rails and well-lit signage. The building was secured and had welcoming areas such as a bright reception area and spacious communal areas with window seats. We did however find the signage may not be beneficial for people living with dementia and we observed a person struggling to find their bedroom. Bedroom doors were not personalised meaning they were not easily identifiable to people. Bedrooms were spacious with double, adjustable beds and a mini fridge. All bedrooms benefited from a generous size en-suite bathroom where people had a choice of shower head they could use. Some bedrooms were named ‘suites’ and benefited from a lounge area and bathtub. Staff spoke of the benefits of the environment. They said, “The home is accessible. Things are in place such as grab rails and secured doors to the garden for safety.”

Partner agencies told us the environment had been adapted to meet people’s needs. They said, “They have level access, lift access to all floors, grab rails along the corridors which are wide and well lit. It is always very clean, and residents always look kempt.” Contingency plans were in place in case of emergency and on call arrangements were in place. The registeredmanager told us reasonable adjustments would be made to ensure every person could access care and support in a way that met their individual needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people. Relatives told us they knew who to speak to if they were worried or had any concerns. People and relative meetings were held regularly. Topics of discussion included upcoming activities and events, food, housekeeping and where areas could be improved. Some people chose to stay in their bedrooms. Staff told us meals were taken to bedrooms; regular checks took place and regular stimulation including nail care or staff popping in for a chat. Staff felt people were treated well and without discrimination. The registered manager spoke of protected characteristics and ensuring everyone was treated with dignity, respect and without discrimination.

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. People and their relatives made no comments about future planning. We saw evidence in people’s care records of advanced wishes being made and recorded where appropriate and a record of who had a DNACPR form in place. Staff had undertaken training in this area, and the registered manager told us, “We approach conversations about end of life wishes with sensitivity, compassion and respect, ensuring they take place at a pace that is comfortable for the resident and their family.”