Rose Court 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 under the new provider. This key question has been rated 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.

People’s care plans showed people’s care plans were individually assessed and developed.

Care plans highlighted people's goals and desired outcomes and they were delivered with flexibility, continuity and inclusion in a person-centred way.

A person told us that staff supported them in the mornings, “By getting me up and checking that I’ve had a wash.” This person said that staff got them up at 7am, which they were happy with and they liked the way the staff supported them. This person also stated that staff kept them ‘clean and tidy, but were not pushy’. Another told us, “I’ve noticed how carefully they help those who need support. I’m able and can walk and have tried to help people occasionally, but they [staff] have made it clear that it is not my job.” A relative told us that the staff were “very kind – all of them.”

We observed that staff gave personalised responses when helping people and they demonstrated a good knowledge of the people they were looking after, and their personal preferences

People’s care was joined up which meant that the staff understood the diverse health and care needs of the people and their local communities. The service shared people’s Information between services, as needed, to ensure people's care and treatment needs could be assessed and met.

People were supported to attend a range of medical appointments and records were kept, detailing the outcomes of each visit. Feedback from external agencies confirmed they worked well with staff and managers of the service, to provide continuous support for people.

The provider had clear understanding of the Accessible Information Standards. People and their families were presented with appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to people’s individual needs. Alternative formats were provided, such as large print, audio versions or different languages, to aid better understanding, as and when needed.

During this assessment we saw a picture menu, with large print and pictures. The registered manager also gave an example of how staff helped support a person, who did not speak English, to communicate effectively. They told us that a member of staff could speak the same language as the person and engaged with them when they worked on their unit. In addition, this person had an advocate who also spoke the same language

People’s views were sought by using their preferred communication methods. Regular people’s and relatives’ meetings and surveys took place, which provided opportunities for them to share feedback and influence service where possible. This helped ensure people were involved and listened to.

There were systems in place to manage complaints. People and their relatives told us they felt able to speak to any of the staff should they need and were confident the provider would address any issues raised in a timely manner. A person told us if they weren’t happy about anything, they would tell a member of staff and believed they would listen and deal with it.

A relative told us communication was good. They said they were always kept informed about any changes and consulted about care and treatment decisions.

Where necessary, local advocacy support would be accessed, to provide independent advice and support.

There were processes in place to support people to access health care providers. People's care plans and risk assessments showed they had access to care, support and when they needed. Information was available to people using the service, staff and care professionals as required.

The registered manager told us that, when a person had no one to represent them, the service made referrals for the person to access an advocate. This helped ensure the person had someone, independent of the service, to help represent their views. We saw the home was accessible and had appropriate adaptations to support people’s needs.

People’s diverse needs were respected. The provider had procedures regarding equality and diversity. Staff also had training to understand this. A staff member told us, “I had training on equality and diversity. We support people from different cultures and backgrounds. I will always treat everyone equally and with respect.” Another staff member said, “Lots of people’s and staff’s religions and cultures are celebrated.”

The registered manager completed regular audits, which helped ensure people’s individual needs and wishes in relation to their protected characteristics, were used to plan their care and support.”

There was guidance in place to obtain information about people’s individual needs and in particular their wishes for the support they wanted to receive at the end of their life.

The service worked closely with professionals from the palliative care team and local hospice to help support and care for people. This helped to ensure people’s wishes and choices would be respected at the appropriate time.