Rose House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has improved to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care.

At our last assessment, staff did not always follow the instructions provided by the registered manager. This inconsistency meant that the registered manager did not have proper oversight of the running of the service which may have an impact on the quality of care people received.

There were systems in place for communication between staff and the management of the service through staff meetings, staff handovers and a digital application. Despite these systems, not all information was successfully passed on to staff. For example, the introduction of a new care planning system was not adequately communicated, resulting in some staff members being unaware of the change. This meant robust protocols were not in place to ensure that significant updates, especially those affecting day-to-day operations and care provision, were effectively relayed to all relevant staff.

During this assessment, we found this had improved. There were good systems in place for communication between staff and the management of the service through a digital application, staff handovers, staff meetings, phone calls, visits from the provider and management meetings.

We saw evidence staff were kept up to date with what was happening in the service. The provider had introduced a digital system which allowed effective communication; this included a read and sign system for staff.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support.

At our last assessment, we found robust good governance systems were not in place to ensure management had oversight of the service.

Systems were not always effective in assessing, identifying and managing risks to people. People’s medicines were not always managed safely. The provider’s system to manage confidential records had not ensured that confidential information was always kept securely. The systems to identify any potential environmental hazards in the service and put measures in place to mitigate those risks were not effective. Food hygiene principles were not being followed. No consent forms for care and support were completed. People did not always receive personalised care that was responsive to their health care needs.

During this assessment, we found the management team undertook regular audits to monitor the quality of the service they provided. For example, this included regular care plan reviews, food safety, medicines management, and health and safety checks audits. If shortfalls were identified, appropriate action were taken, for example, asking staff to complete refresher training if they were not up to date.

The new digital system allowed the management team to have overall oversight of how the service was being run.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

At our last assessment, we noted although the provider had a variety of monitoring and auditing tools in place to check the quality of care and support being provided to people. The information was not always analysed to identify themes or drive improvement. As a result, opportunities to monitor and enhance the quality of care were missed.

During this assessment, we found the provider had systems in place to ensure that learning happened when things could be improved. Processes were in place to ensure that learning took place when things went wrong, as well as from examples of good practice.

People’s care experiences were regularly reviewed to find ways to better support them in achieving their goals. The registered manager worked closely with other health and social care professionals to ensure people received the care and support they needed.

The registered manager maintained an open-door policy, encouraging people, relatives, and staff to share any concerns or suggestions. This openness helped the service to run effectively and responsively.