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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has improved 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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

At our last assessment, we found 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.

During this assessment, we found people received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care plans contained information on how each person must be supported, as well as people’s preferences. We noted care plans provided staff with enough information to enable them to meet people’s needs. There was also information about specific health conditions that detailed the actions staff needed to take to ensure the person were safe.

Staff completed daily notes detailing the care they had provided. This helped staff to be aware of any changes in the person’s needs and ensure there was continuity of care.

Care plans were on electronic format, staff had access to them on smart devices. We saw care plan and risk assessments had been regularly reviewed.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

At our last assessment, 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. For another person who was not able to communicate verbally, there was no communication aids such as pictures used to communicate with them.

During this assessment, we found information on how to communicate with people had been reviewed and was included in their care plans. For example, there was guidance for staff to follow with a person as they had a speech impairment. There were communication aids in place to use to improve communication with people who use the service. This helped to ensure staff were able to meet people’s communication needs.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.