Dorset 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 changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff 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.

Staff worked in partnership with people and, where appropriate, their relatives to understand what was important to them, including their preferences, backgrounds, and individual needs. This enabled staff to provide care which was tailored to each person.

The care plans we viewed were personalised and contained detailed information for staff to follow. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed to make sure these continued to meet people’s current needs.

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.

Staff worked collaboratively with people, relatives, and external healthcare professionals to ensure people received coordinated and continuous care. Staff told us communication was effective, with important information shared through verbal handovers at the start and end of each shift, written documentation, and during daily meetings to ensure people’s needs were responded to consistently. Where people’s needs changed, staff took appropriate action to ensure they continued to receive the support they required. Staff understood the importance of following and implementing professionals’ advice and guidance to support people’s health and wellbeing.

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

People’s communication needs were assessed and documented in their care plans to guide staff. Staff knew people well and knew how to communicate with them.

We saw accessible information was displayed around the home. For example, there were visual menus and cards to show food items and a visual pictorial weekly activities guide. People had access to ‘The Rotherwood Times’ newspaper which detailed news from the provider’s homes such as staffing updates, celebrations and activities such as pictures of people living at Dorset House.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Resident’s and relative’s meetings were held where actions from the previous meeting, safety updates, current Issues, compliments about care, surroundings, dining, inspiring activities and any other updates or matters were discussed. For example, during the June 2026 residents meeting, people commented the home felt much calmer since the new memory care suite had been introduced, provided positive feedback about mealtimes and requested cheese and biscuits or mints and coffee after lunch. People, who were able to, also showed a preference for external entertainers and said they like the singers who come in and include them in their performances.

Staff supervisions and staff meetings were held. Staff spoken with told us during those meetings they discussed achievements, could share ideas and make suggestions and said they always felt listened to. Feedback was also sought from people using the service, families, staff and external professionals in the form of an annual survey. The information was analysed and informed quality improvement plans and operational decision making. A summary of the outcomes from the 2025 customer satisfaction survey was produced in a "You Said, We Did" format. This was displayed in the reception area of the home to ensure transparency and to show people using the service, families, staff, and visitors how their feedback had led to meaningful change. Satisfaction surveys were being disseminated at the time of the inspection. In addition, a digital reception system was in place enabling visitors to leave feedback at the end of each visit. If there was any indication the visitor was unhappy with their experience, an automatic email alert is sent in real time to both the home manager and senior managers. This allows them to address any concerns they may receive immediately. The management team also actively monitored and responded to online feedback received. The home currently has a 5-star rating on reviews. We saw compliments in the form of thank you cards from relatives to the staff team. One read as, ‘Thank you everyone for working so hard looking after [person].’ Another commented on the care and comfort staff provided to their loved one.

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

People’s needs were regularly reviewed to ensure staff had up to date information on the care and support people required. There was clear evidence of collaborative working and good communication with other professionals. When specialist input was required, prompt referrals were made. For example, a speech and language therapy (SALT) referral was completed for an individual with swallowing difficulties, and staff fully implemented the subsequent recommendations. The physical environment was fully accessible, enabling people to move freely and independently throughout the home. This would be further strengthened when the ordered signage to support orientation and wayfinding for people is in place.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about individuals who are most likely to experience inequalities in their care or outcomes, tailoring treatment and support to meet their specific needs.For example, every staff member had completed Deaf Awareness training, enabling colleagues across all roles to understand the practical and emotional impact of hearing loss. Staff adapted their communication to meet each person’s individual needs, embedding a culture where communication is recognised as a fundamental aspect of safe, compassionate and person-centred care, rather than simply an interaction. A dedicated hearing loss champion member of staff provided ongoing support to colleagues, promoted good practice and helped maintain high standards of hearing care throughout the home.

There was a comprehensive environmental audit completed which helped identify and reduce unnecessary barriers to communication, considering issues such as background noise, lighting, dining environments, television use and quieter spaces for conversation. The recommendations from the audit were being embedded into daily practice, ensuring the physical environment actively supports people living with hearing loss which reflects the recommendations within the national guidance for hearing-friendly care homes. In addition, assessments and care planning processes now routinely include hearing health alongside physical, emotional, and cognitive wellbeing. This ensured people received more holistic, person-centred support which directly addressed previously overlooked sensory needs.

The provider had an Equality and Diversity policy in place, and all staff had completed training in this area. This helped staff to provide respectful, person-centred care which meets individual needs regardless of background or identity.

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.

People had current ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms in place to ensure their personal wishes are followed. Staff supported individuals and their relatives to discuss and establish future care preferences, including end-of-life care. Care records showed sensitive questionnaires regarding end-of-life wishes had been shared with families to complete. Where these details were provided, they were integrated into care plans to ensure preferences could be fully met. Where families chose not to provide this information, their decision was respected and clearly documented; plans remain open to further personalisation should more details be shared in the future.

There were multiple messages thanking the staff team for the support they gave people at the end of their lives from people’s relatives. One thank you card read, ‘Thank you all for the care and attention you all showed to [person’s name], and all of us. Moving [person] into Dorset House was the right decision for us and [person’s name] and it enabled them a dignified and peaceful end, with us able to be with them.’