Red Rose Care Community

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvements. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, and wellbeing needs with them. Staff had reviewed people’s care plans but did not always identify care plans were incorrect or lacked detail. For example, a person was living with Parkinson’s and there was no care plan in place to detail how they wanted to be supported. People and relatives told us they were not always involved in reviewing their care. One relative told us, “I haven’t seen [family member] care plan since they came here 8 months ago.” This meant people’s needs were not continually assessed by people or people who knew them well to ensure individual needs were reviewed and met.

The provider did not always ensure they were delivering evidence-based care and treatment. External health professionals were involved regularly in people’s care and raised concerns of the lack of effective use of tools to assess if people are acutely unwell. For example, one professional told us, “Management and identification of a deteriorating resident despite having tools for this is a concern,[for example] sepsis and diabetic management.” This meant staff had not always monitored people in line with national tools and guidance, and this placed people at risk of harm by not identifying early warning signs of health deterioration.

We received mixed feedback regarding the quality of food. One person told us, “It is not brilliant but what do you expect, we just accept what’s offered and eat it. The homemade puddings are nice though.” People’s nutrition and hydration needs were assessed. Some people were assessed to be at risk of choking and required modified diets; we observed these had been followed. We observed people had enough to eat and drink during our onsite visit to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People were supported by a registered manager and staff team that worked in partnership with health and social care professionals. However, care plans had not always contained important information about the person, they lacked detail about their health diagnoses and no guidance what professionals were involved. A health professional team visited Red Rose Care Community regularly, changes to people’s health needs were discussed but not always updated in their care plans and any agreed actions were not always completed. For example, when the health team requested weekly weights to monitor people’s health conditions staff had not always actioned this request. This meant teams and services did not always work effectively and placed people at risk from not having their health risks identified.

The staff team at Red Rose Community Care told us they worked well as a team. One staff member told us, “We work very well as a team, supporting each other and communicating effectively to give consistent, high-quality care."

Risks to people health and wellbeing were not always fully assessed or mitigated. Whilst activities planners were used and some people were encouraged to keep their skills and interests up, for example a DIY club had been organised. We found during our visit the planners were out of date and people were left long periods of time sitting and having nothing to do. Therefore, we were not assured how often activities had taken place. This meant people were at risk of losing their skills, isolation and declining mental wellbeing. People told us they enjoyed the activities when they were on. One person told us, “We were taken on a river cruise on the Trent as an outing recently.” Another person told us, “On Wednesday’s a guy comes in to do ball games and exercises."

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Risk assessment and/or care plans did not always include information about symptoms staff needed to be aware of to monitor people’s health. This meant it would be difficult to monitor or improve outcomes for people. Health professionals have raised concerns with the lack of monitoring of acutely unwell people and contacting appropriate health care services such as emergency services. People were not always given an opportunity to discuss what was working and what needed to be improved in their care planning. Care plans were not updated if changes had occurred in a timely manner. This meant staff did not always have accurate information to support people effectively or monitor changing care needs.

The registered manager followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to make decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. We found mental capacity assessments had been completed for people who were deemed to lack capacity. Staff had completed mental capacity training. Staff had a good understanding regarding consent to care. One staff member told us, “I understand that consent means giving a person the right to make their own decision about the care and support the receive. I always explain what I am going to do in a clear and respectful way and ask for their permission before providing any care.” We observed staff obtaining consent before supporting them. This meant people had their rights respected.