Rosebank 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At our last assessment we rated responsive as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. Staff managed beds well. A bed was available when a patient needed one. Patients were supported with discharge when they were well enough to. The design, layout, and furnishings of the service supported patients’ treatment, privacy and dignity. Staff supported patients with activities outside the service, such as work, education and family relationships. The service met the needs of all patients – including those with a protected characteristic. Staff helped patients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

Staff make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

We reviewed 9 care records and saw evidence of patient involvement in their care plans. Care plans reflected patients’ physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

We saw Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) plans in place of a good quality, with evidence-based interventions such as Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) tailored to the individual. We saw examples of patients’ involvement in activity timetables and menu choices. The patient representative attended the service clinical governance meetings. 

Staff listened to patients when they expressed their views and responded appropriately. Patients we spoke with told us they felt involved in their care and treatment; patients told us they had copies of their care plans.

Staff tailored therapies to meet the needs of the individuals. They worked together with the patient to understand the person for who they are. Staff told us they put the patient at the centre of their treatment. 

Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of people and local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked with other health and social care providers to ensure that patients’ needs were met and that they received joined up care.

Staff ensured that patients could access activities in the community, for example, the service arranged day trips for patients including visits to the cinema, zoo, trips to the park and other outdoor sports activities. 

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Carers told us they could contact their loved ones and could visit them at the hospital. The service held carer events and was planning a summer event. 

Staff provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service did not have patient information in an accessible easy read format. This was discussed with the service who informed us they were in the process of producing an easy read version. Managers told us that leaflets could be translated into different language as needed.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain if they need to. Patients told us they knew how to complain, if they needed to. 

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed, such as the CQC and local authority safeguarding teams. The service kept clear records of their safeguarding referrals and outcomes.

Staff ensured carers and families were regularly updated about the patient’s progress, where the patient had given consent for their information to be shared.

Staff developed care plans in collaboration with patients. The care plans were holistic, recovery focused and personalised. Care plans were written in simple English which meant patients could easily understand them. 

Staff completed notifications, and shared information with external bodies as needed. 

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services and patients’ rights and we saw a wide range of leaflets and posters on noticeboards.

Staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

 The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients and carers knew how to complain or raise concerns, if they needed to. We reviewed the service’s 2025 patient survey. 6 patients responded, 67% understood their rights regarding consent to treatment and, were offered information about their health, care and support.100% said they had a healthy diet that catered for their dietary needs, 83% felt understood and listened to.  We reviewed the complaints and concerns log for the 6-month period prior to inspection. There had been no formal complaints during this time. Staff were aware of the complaints process. Staff told us they also recorded informal concerns raised by patients.

Staff enabled patients to provide feedback about the care and treatment they received. We reviewed examples of patient experience surveys, including ‘My Care and Treatment’, and community meeting minutes, which showed that staff routinely sought feedback and suggestions about the service. However, the community meeting agenda was primarily focused on organisational and operational matters and did not always facilitate patient-centred discussion or provide opportunities for patients to raise issues that were important to them. We discussed this with leaders during the inspection. Leaders acknowledged this issue and told us they were reviewing the structure and content of community meetings to ensure they better reflected patients’ views, experiences and priorities.

The service gave patients the opportunity to give their views on the service via a survey called “my care survey”.

The service organised carer events invited family members to review meetings and provided opportunities for them to give feedback or raise concerns. Records we reviewed contained evidence of carer involvement in care planning, the carer we spoke with reported feeling involved when patients had given consent for their participation. 

Staff made sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients – for example, patients with mobility issues were provided with walking aids, shower chairs. Wheelchair users bedrooms were on the ground floor and there was a lift to access the first floor.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend quickly in an emergency. 

Staff ensured patients had access to appropriate post-discharge support and aftercare arrangements. Records showed that multidisciplinary team (MDT) reviews considered patients’ progress, recovery goals and participation in therapeutic activities as part of discharge planning. Staff discussed patients’ ongoing care and support needs during Section 117 aftercare meetings to help ensure a coordinated transition into the community.  Section 117 aftercare is a legal right to free health and social care services provided in the community after patients leave hospital following detention under specific parts of the Mental Health Act 1983 revised 2007.

Staff actively sought out and listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. staff tailored the care, support and treatment in response to this.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff understood the different needs of people and worked to ensure that everyone received fair and consistent care. They treated people equally and did not discriminate based on their background or personal circumstances.

Staff considered people’s individual needs, including their culture, beliefs and personal circumstances, when planning and delivering care. This helped ensure that people had positive experiences and that care met their specific needs. 

The service made adjustments where needed to support people to achieve similar outcomes. For example, staff supported people with communication needs so they could understand their care and be involved in decisions. 

Staff monitored people’s progress and outcomes to make sure care was effective for everyone. They worked to identify and address any differences to ensure people had equal opportunities to recover and improve their wellbeing. 

Staff supported people to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported by planning important changes in life, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future including at the end of their life.

The service had a discharge policy in place, and care planning reflected patients’ future needs, goals and ongoing support requirements. Staff worked collaboratively with external services to ensure appropriate care and support arrangements were established before discharge. 

Relevant healthcare professionals, social care teams and other agencies were involved in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex needs. This coordinated approach helped to promote continuity of care, support effective