Rose Meadow

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

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The registered manager carried out a detailed assessment of people’s needs prior to them moving in to ensure they were well suited to the physical environment as well as considering compatibility with other people who lived at the service. We saw assessments were detailed and captured people’s wishes and needs, capacity, communication, and others involved in their life.

People’s history was included in care plans which had been gathered from the person, relatives and professionals. This provided a holistic view of the person including any exposure to trauma to ensure it was considered in all their care planning.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were supported and encouraged to maintain relationships with others, and we saw people making phone calls to family as well as receiving visitors. Staff supported people to engage in activities that were meaningful to them. Staff recorded people’s food and fluid intake and also provided an example of a concern around a person’s fluid consumption which they had created a specific record for better oversight and to share with medical professionals.

Care plans contained detailed information on how best to support people to ensure what was important and what mattered to them was included in their day-to-day support.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

We reviewed numerous records which evidenced engagement with external professionals to support positive outcomes for people. On the whole relatives felt the staff team worked in conjunction with them to support their loved one. One relative said, “We’re kept in the loop with what’s happening and they [staff] communicate to us.” However, we received feedback from one relative who raised issues around how the team engaged with them and concerns about a lack of effective engagement with external professionals to gain the correct care and support. This was discussed with the registered manager who advised what action had been taken, including engagement with the Local Authority, and further planned action.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access the GP, dental services, opticians as well as specialist services for example, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy.

Staff were knowledgeable and support plans contained detailed information on people’s specific health needs and anything in place to maintain people’s health and wellbeing. For example, one person who was at risk of choking, we saw examples recorded of staff prompting them when eating to reduce the risk of them choking.

People were supported to go for walks and were offered a variety of nutritious meals and snacks to support their health and wellbeing.

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.

We saw examples of the registered manager monitoring people’s care and treatment through the review of records and things that had been implemented to support with improving outcomes, for example updated support plans to guide staff after a change in a person’s mobility.

Outcomes and achievements were celebrated, and the registered manager had oversight of this and kept documentation to showcase these achievements. This meant setting goals with people and supporting them to reach these goals was an embedded way of working promoting positive outcomes for people.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We saw capacity to consent was considered through documentation in support plans and staff had a clear understanding of capacity and consent. Staff sought people’s consent before carrying out any care and support.

Observation of staff engagement with people showed they communicated with people using their preferred method of communication including using signs, language that was simple to understand, and gestures/pointing to things.

These measures supported people’s choice and ensured, when people were unable to make a decision for themselves, that the right people were involved in decision making so that it was in line with the persons wishes and preferences and made in their best interests and within a legal framework in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.