Roop Cottage Residential Home

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

This key question has been rated good. Some improvements were required to ensure records relating to people's capacity and consent were improved. People received support to access health and social care appointments and their needs were monitored. There were good links with other relevant professionals. An updated admissions policy was in place to support new people wishing to move into the home.

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.

We did not receive any feedback from people on this quality statement.

The provider told us they had updated their Admissions Policy and assessment tools to ensure detailed information was collated to establish if the home could meet a new person's needs, prior to their admission to the home. There had been no new admissions to the home since our last assessment. The provider confirmed there were no plans for any imminent admissions and they were focused on ensuring improvements they were currently working on were fully embedded prior to accepting new referrals.

There was a detailed admissions policy. This provided clear guidance on the processes to follow to make sure people's needs were assessed and could be met by the home, prior to admission.

We did not receive any concerns from people and relatives in relation to this quality statement.

Staff understood the importance of monitoring people’s care. Comments included, "If a person is unable to meet their target, monitoring helps us to identify other alternatives." The manager confirmed monitoring charts were audited and monitored regularly to ensure they were consistently completed and any concerns highlighted quickly.

Care records provided evidence to show good practice guidance was followed. For example, the provider had systems in place to analyze and audit people's weights and falls. Records showed action had been taken to mitigate falls risks and where people were losing weight referrals had been made to the GP and dietician and actions taken to increase people's nutritional intake.

People and relatives did not raise any concerns about teamwork or being able to access support from other services. One relative said they had seen recent improvements in team working. They said, "They [staff] appear happy and they are always cheerful."

Staff understood how working collaboratively achieved good outcomes. A staff member said, “Teamwork is supporting each other, if we need any help, we can go to anybody including the senior carer and the manager”. The manager confirmed they worked collaboratively with other health and social care professionals. The manager said, "We are a hands on team." They said they worked closely with staff to ensure effective communication and teamwork. The provider told us they were working closely with the support team who provided the electronic care planning system to ensure this was used effectively.

We received feedback from partners which confirmed they had seen recent improvements at the service. Feedback from partners confirmed further improvements were required to improve care records after recent visits. They confirmed good relationships and collaborative working was now in place.

Processes were in place to ensure there were regular team meetings and shorter ad hoc flash meetings. These were documented with clear actions and the notes shared with staff who were not able to attend. The manager attended daily handover meetings. The provider had processes in place to communicate with people's relatives and representatives. The provider had a monthly meeting with the local authority contracting and commissioning team.

People and relatives told us their healthcare needs were met. One relative told us their relative had recently required support from a specialist service and this had been arranged promptly.

Staff told us they promoted a a healthy lifestyle for people they supported, whilst respecting their choices and autonomy.

Processes were in place to ensure people were supported to live healthier lives and were able to access health and social care specialists for advice and guidance. People's care records showed input from GPs, district nurses, chiropodist, and other relevant health and social care professionals.

People and relatives provided positive feedback. They felt confident in the care and support provided.

Staff understood the importance of monitoring people’s care. The manager told us there was ongoing monitoring of people's records including food and fluid charts and repositioning charts to ensure they were consistently completed by staff.

Processes were in place to ensure people's care and treatment and improve outcomes. Charts were in place to monitor people's care relating to food and fluids, repositioning, hygiene, emotional support and social interactions.

People and relatives reported staff asked for consent before providing care and support. Comments included, "Staff always say what they are planning to do and check I am happy with this."

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). They understood the principles of capacity and consent and how this influenced their role.

Although our observations showed staff sought and gained consent from people before providing support and care, the recording of consent in some care records required improvement. The manager was aware and was taking action to address these issues.