Rosemount Care Home

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 key question was previously rated requires improvement. This key question has improved to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care was well personalised to people’s individual needs and preferences. People’s care plans reflected their needs and benefitted from the input of loved ones and external professionals. Staff anticipated people’s changing needs and supported people when they needed additional support, but the provider’s care plans were not always effective at the time of inspection.Some care records needed further work to ensure clearer person-centred strategies were in place regarding some specific areas of care. The provider was responsive to our feedback regarding this and made further changes during the inspection. The registered manager and staff had made significant progress in ensuring people played a central role in planning their care; they were involved and listened to at regular intervals.

The environment was more conducive to person-centred care, with an environment people could relax and orientate themselves in. The outdoor spaces needed review and improvement to help support people feel calm and at home.

People received much more consistent care from staff who had got to know them well. One relative said, “They took their time to get to know him, and he trusts them.” Staff had confidence in their roles and sought advice from the right external professionals when needed. Staff had built up good levels of trust and understanding with people.

Staff understood people’s diverse health and social care needs, which ensured they were more able to help people experience joined up care. They advocated well for people. People’s care and treatment consistently met their assessed needs.

People and families raised no concerns about having access to the information they needed, when they needed it. One person said, “I like keeping up to speed and I know what’s on the notice boards.” These were vibrant, up to date and offered a range of information for people who used the service and families.

The registered manager had reintroduced resident and relative meetings, newsletters and surveys to ensure people had access to updates through a range of means.

People found it much easier to provide feedback about their care and accommodation. One person said, “The manager is always walking around, always there if you need anything.” One relative said, “The door is always open and credit to them. They listened and then they made changes based on what we told them.”

In addition to being on site full time and making themselves approachable for families, the registered manager had implemented more meetings and surveys to give people the chance to be listened to. They had successfully built trust with people who used the service by delivering on promised actions.

People and relatives felt confident they could complain if they had any concerns and had confidence these concerns would be dealt with.

People were supported by staff who understood their needs well. Staff escalated health and wellbeing matters and sought advice regularly. People received the additional health support they needed from a range of external clinicians.

People were able to easily engage with the registered manager, contributing their ideas and raising any concerns. People’s views had clearly been sought and listened to during the refurbishment work and there was further scope to ensure people remained at the heart of future changes.

People’s care plans included some information about what kind of care and support they wanted for when they neared the end of their lives. This needed review and improvement to ensure the distinction between what was needed in emergency healthcare planning, advanced care planning, and end of life care planning, was much clearer.

The registered manager broached conversations about people approaching the end of their lives sensitively and practically. They had made a room available for relatives to stay over when a person neared the end of their life. One relative told us, “They couldn’t have done more at the end – they made sure it wasn’t a shock, and we were ready to be there for [person]. All the staff were lovely, kind and caring.”