Rose Water Place Care Home

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.This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were assessed and reviewed regularly.

People’s care plans contained information about what people could do for themselves and what they required support with.People told us staff knew how to support them, “They all know what help I need. They know that I need a wheelchair to move.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff used nationally recognised tools to assess people’s needs, this included checking the risk of malnutrition and developing pressure sores. However, when people were found to be at risk, based on these assessments, individual risk assessments had not always been developed.

Some people were at risk of choking. Staff had recorded what level and consistency of food people had been assessed as requiring, using the nationally recognised guidance. For example, if people needed their food to be mashed and soft.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The heads of department throughout the service met each day to exchange important information. This included any new admissions or discharges to make sure everything was in place. Changes to people’s needs were also shared between departments to make sure people received safe and good quality care, such as a change in dietary needs. Staff had regular handover sessions during the day so any changes could be highlighted to staff coming on duty.

Staff referred people to healthcare professionals when people’s needs changed. Care plans were reviewed and updated following advice from healthcare professionals, including starting nutritional supplements when people were at risk of weight loss.Relatives told us they were kept informed when people’s needs changed and the action which had been taken.

Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People had access to appropriate healthcare when they needed it. Advice and treatment had been sought from professionals such as dietician, chiropodist and GP.

A chiropodist visited the service regularly, promoting the commitment to maintaining people’s health and mobility. People told us they were referred to their GP when needed.Staff had received training to increase their awareness and understanding of people’s specific health needs, such as Parkinson’s disease and diabetes. However, not all staff had received training to increase their understanding of epilepsy to support people with epilepsy living at the service.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The expected outcomes were included in people’s care plans, to guide staff to understand the reason for each individual plan of care. Each person’s care plans included individual detail about the person, including their understanding of their health and care needs, or if they had a loved one who helped them to understand.

Some people’s care plans described how they thought they could do more for themselves and how staff could support their independence. People who required additional support with eating and drinking had their intake monitored to identify when there were any concerns.

Staff worked within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). However, records were not always complete or detailed. Staff had undertaken best interest decisions when people had been assessed as not having capacity. Records were not always detailed to show how the input from the people involved had been gained such as by virtual meeting or separately and on what date.

Although best interest decision form followed on from the capacity assessment form, the specific decision being made was not included. Some people’s best interest forms just repeated why the person lacked capacity, not how the decision was made.People who needed to have their medicines covertly had documentation in their medicines record showing how this had been decided. However, this had not been recorded in the person’s medicines capacity assessment, this record was not accurate.People and relatives told us they had been involved in making decisions. People told us staff supported them to make choices and for consent before they received support.