Rose House

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. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care plans were not person-centred and did not fully reflect people’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs. As a result, the service did not always provide people with options or choices about how their care was delivered or ensure care and treatment were tailored to individual needs.

People did not always receive personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care plans contained information on how each person must be supported, however did not cover people’s preferences. For example, a care plan we reviewed did not state if the person preferred to have a male or female staff. The care plan also did not specify if the person had any allergies.

Another care plan indicted that a person washed their hair every day. However, there was no record to demonstrate this was being done. Daily notes only stated that staff were assisted with personal care. This meant people’s personal hygiene needs may not have been fully met.

Where people’s care plan referred to them living with the medical condition such as diabetes, a personalised risk assessment detailing early intervention and management strategies to reduce the risk of complications with this medical condition were not recorded. The care plan stated that the person required a sugar free/no added sugar diet and healthy eating plan. However, there was no healthy eating plan in the care plan folder.

The provider did not keep an accurate record of the food and fluid intake of the people using the service. For an example, a care plan for a person living with diabetes stated that they should not have sweet food or drink. However, there were no records to indicate what type of food they had for their breakfast, lunch and dinner. There was no risk assessment and management in place to manage this chronic health condition.

When we spoke with staff about this, they were not aware of this requirement. This meant people’s individual nutrition needs were not always being fully met.

We found daily notes did not always record what support was provided to people during personal care, and what type of food people were offered and had eaten. For example, a person who had diabetes and was a sugar free diet, their daily note mentioned that they had biscuits during the day, but it did not state which type of biscuits, for example chocolate, or crackers as this may have an impact on their blood glucose levels This issue was discussed with the registered manager who said that they would ensure daily notes were more detailed.

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.

The provider worked closely with health services to develop a network of support, which helped to ensure people’s needs were met.

The provider also had systems in place to promptly arrange additional support following unexpected events, such as when a person become unwell, for example by calling an ambulance.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information on how to communicate with people was documented in care plans. However, we found some discrepancies. For example, a care plan stated that a person had limited understanding of the English Language but was able to use picture book if needed for them to help them and others to understand. We were unable to see the picture book in the care plan. The team leader confirmed there was no picture book in place. The corresponding risk assessment stated that the person had tendencies to answering questions by saying ‘Yes’ when they meant ‘No.’ This meant people’s communication needs had not been explored fully to ensure they were effectively met.

For another person who was not able to communicate verbally, there was no communication aids such as pictures used to communicate with them. The provider confirmed that as staff knew the person for a long time and they understood their needs the way they sounded. However, new staff members would struggle to meet this person’s communication needs.

On our second visit, the provider showed us new communication aids, which they plan to use to improve communication with people who use the service.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People were encouraged, where possible, to contribute their views and be actively involved in decisions about the care and support they received. Staff had regular meetings with people to discuss their care needs.

Relatives told us that they were kept up to date with what was happening with their family members. A relative told us, “I always been involved in [person’s] care. It has been constant. I get regular updates from [registered manager].”

A relative told us, “I have no complaint.” I know how to make a complaint. I have a good relationship with the management.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Equality and inclusion were actively promoted. People were treated fairly and without discrimination, and their specific needs relating to protected characteristics were identified, respected, and recorded in their care plans to ensure appropriate support.

Staff actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider ensured that people’s care and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays, and protected their rights.

Staff were trained to recognise and respond to diverse needs, promoting fairness and inclusivity in the delivery of care.

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.

There were systems in place to discuss, record and support people's palliative care and end of life care needs.

We looked at 2 care records and noted that in one care plan the person’s wishes were detailed whilst in another care plan, the information recorded was very brief. This was discussed with the team leader who said that they would review this section of the care plan.