Rose Meadow

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider 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.

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 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 support plans which were detailed, person centred and tailored to people’s individual needs and wishes.

Support plans evidenced involvement of people where they were able to and these areas of their support plan were recorded using their words, relatives also spoke with us about attending reviews of relatives care and support. This ensured people were at the centre of their care.

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.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s diverse health and care needs. Staff had received person specific training to develop their knowledge of individuals care requirements to ensure they effectively met people’s needs.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care including the appointments they accessed.

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

Staff adapted their communication to ensure people were provided with the information they needed. We saw examples of information in picture format including the menu to support people’s understanding and choice.

We observed staff using sign language to communicate with people, they considered people’s preferred communication methods and were aware of communication through people’s body language.

One relative told us, “[Staff] talk to [relative] face to face and know the right proximity, they use appropriate language [relative] understands.”

Another relative said, “[Staff] talk to them always, [relative] has got a board they can point to different things, and [staff] always inform them when we come to visit, they communicate well with [relative].”

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.

We saw the providers complaints procedure was available in an easy read format for people. We observed open communication between people, staff and management. Relatives provided examples of how they were involved in their loved one’s care and support.

Staff listened to people and responded appropriately when they communicated their needs and wishes including through facial expression and gestures.

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

We saw evidence which confirmed people had been supported to access care and treatment, including emergency care, when they needed it.

This meant people were effectively supported to access the care and treatment required in a timely way to support them to maintain their health and wellbeing.

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.

People were unable to provide any feedback on this, but we spoke with relatives. One relative said, “[Relative] care is tailored to them, it’s person centred, staff contribute to their wellbeing, care’s holistic, it all helps them and works, spot on.”

We did not review any evidence which indicated people did not experience equitable outcomes in relation to their care and support.

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.

We reviewed support plans which included information about if the person had a RESPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) form or DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) documentation in place. Where people declined to discuss end of life plans this was respectfully documented.