Rose House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has improved to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with good practice and required standards.

At our last assessment, the provider did not always ensure people received care and support based on the latest good practice and relevant guidance. There was no positive behaviour support approach to manage a person’s agitation and behaviours that challenge. Without a documented plan, staff cannot consistently spot what triggers the behaviour, use agreed ways to calm the person, or provide safe, person-centred support. This makes it harder to deliver care that is based on best practice.

We also found people living with diabetes did not have risk assessments in place. This meant staff may be unaware of risks like low blood sugar, affecting safe, evidence-based care.

During this assessment, we found the provider made sure people received care and support in line with current best practice. The missing information had now been put in place. This helped to ensure staff followed the latest guidance in place when supporting people with their needs, for example, caring for people who had diabetes.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care.

At our last assessment, we found the service was not routinely working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

During this assessment, we found people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the staff acted in accordance with legal requirements. Mental capacity assessments were in place.

People were involved in discussions and decisions about how they wanted to receive their care. This included being asked their consent before care and support was provided.

Staff had been trained and showed an understanding of the MCA and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They had access to a policy and procedure that provided them with the information they needed to know.