The Rookery Care Home

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 good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good.This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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. Staff knew the importance of privacy and confidentiality. One staff member said, “If the GP comes in, we make sure they are in a quiet room so other people can't hear what is being discussed.”

People described staff as social, patient, and good listeners who respected their privacy and dignity. One person said, “They very much respect me. It’s private when I go to the toilet or bathroom.” One relative said,“ They are quite caring people [staff]. They know [name] likes and dislikes. They know how to make them smile.”

Throughout the assessment day we observed staff socialising and supporting people in their chosen way. This created a warm and welcoming environment in the home. People were observed to be at ease with staff and were supported with dignity and compassion when they requested support with things such as personal care. This meant people were treated with warmth and respect, helping them feel valued and safe.

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.

Care plans detailed people’s needs and preferences. This provided staff with accurate information to ensure people’s individual needs were met.

One staff member said, “If they want to go to the beach and can't cause they can't go outside you can get them a sand pit and put sand in it. If you can't take them out, you take out in. You do what you can to make them feel happy. It isn't just making cups of tea, you have to do the best for them.” This meant people received care which recognised and respected their unique needs and preferences.

The provider did not consistently promote people’s independence, and this meant individuals were not always supported to understand their rights or to have meaningful choice and control over their care, treatment, and wellbeing.

Staff were kind and person centred in their approach, and people were offered choices which reflected their communication needs and preferences. One staff member said, “If they have independence we will reassure and prompt, showing dignity and respect.” Care plans were person centred and included information about what mattered to people. However, these positive elements were not always embedded in day-to-day practice in a way that fully supported people to maintain in dependence or make fully informed decisions about their care and wellbeing.

The environment did not support independence for people living with dementia. The lack of dementia‑friendly features made it more difficult for people to navigate the service safely and confidently. There was an absence of clear signage, visual cues and orientation tools which would usually support people to recognise different areas of the building, maintain routines, and make independent choices. This meant people were more reliant on staff, which reduced their ability to manage aspects of their daily life independently.

Although staff encouraged people and supported daily choices, the absence of dementia friendly environmental adjustments meant some individuals were more reliant on staff than necessary. This reduced opportunities for people to move around the service independently or make spontaneous choices about how they used the environment.

This meant people did not consistently experience a service that maximised independence, supported informed choice, or ensured they had full control over decisions about their care and daily life.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

People and their relatives told us staff know them well and responded quickly whenever they asked for help. One relative said, “They watch all the time and come quickly. They are there for them when they need the toilet. They call them or raise their hand to ask. There are always staff in the communal area.”

Staff told us how they responded to people when they use their call bell or if they step on a sensor mat to try and prevent falls and provide timely support. One staff member said, “We will have a call. Most of them have floor mats if they are high risk of falls. If they fall out of bed or step on it and then you go and answer that straight away and see what they need.” During our assessment we tested some call bells and found they did not always work, however these were in rooms without people in them at the time and when pointed out a staff member was able to get one of these to work. The provider took on feedback about this to investigate the call bells to see if there was an issue with the reliability of them working.

This meant people experienced compassionate, person-centred care from staff who knew them well, respected their preferences, and responded promptly to their needs.

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

Staff told us they felt valued and had a sense of belonging within the team. Many praised the management team for their approachability and the level of individual support provided. Staff were able to describe situations where they had been supported to take time away from work for family matters or medical appointments, and they felt the management team were understanding when personal issues affected their working life.
Staff member said, “They are flexible and supportive. If I need time off for doctors or [family emergencies]. Normally you need to give notice of a month, but they are really good. Some care staff have children, and they are great at covering shifts and saying not to worry. They are very good at working around us.”

Although staff felt well supported on a personal level, these arrangements were informal and not governed by defined processes. There were no clear policies or structured systems in place regarding flexible working, wellbeing support, or staff assistance, meaning decisions were made at the discretion of individual managers. The CQC expects providers to have consistent, accessible systems that meet the wellbeing needs of staff, such as clear guidance, safe working facilities, and timely responses to staff concerns. In the absence of formal procedures, staff wellbeing relied heavily on ad hoc managerial support rather than an embedded organisational approach.

There was no available information to signpost staff to wellbeing resources, such as employee assistance programmes, counselling services, or external support organisations for opportunities to raise concerns or feedback on their experiences.

Despite positive relationships within the team, the lack of formal wellbeing systems limited the provider’s ability to ensure consistent support for all staff. Without established policies, regular wellbeing monitoring or accessible support pathways, the service could not demonstrate it reliably promoted staff wellbeing in a way that aligned with regulatory expectations or ensured staff always had what they needed to sustain safe, person-centred care.