Archived: Rosebank House

Updated 29 June 2016

Rosebank House is an independent hospital that provides open rehabilitation inpatient services. The hospital accommodates up to four women and nine men who require mental health care and treatment to support them move to more independent living. At the time of the inspection there were 12 patients.

Patients admitted to Rosebank House are usually stepping down from locked mental health inpatient wards.

At the time of the inspection the hospital had admitted people with a wide range in needs and age. The service had also admitted patients with a learning disability.

Rosebank House is registered to provide the following regulated activities: Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. There is a registered manager in post.

En-suite male and female bedroom accommodation is located on separate floors. There was disabled access within the hospital with an adapted male bedroom.

Partnerships in Care Limited became the registered provider of Rosebank House in June 2015. This means that this was the first inspection of the service under the new provider.

Updated 29 June 2016

We rated Rosebank House as requires improvement because:

• There were blind spots that undermined staff’s ability to undertake effective observations.
• Staff were not undertaking or recording the minimum level of observation of patients.
• There were numerous ligature points, no ligature cutters nor a ligature risk assessment.
• The hospital did not fully comply with same sex accommodation guidance.
• Temporary staff had not received an adequate induction.
• There was no system in place to check the competence of staff to administer medicines safely.
• Staff did not always follow medicines management policies.
• Clinical nursing staff were not involved in clinical audits.
• There were no clear recovery pathways in patients care plans.
• The service did not use outcome measures when supporting people.
• Care plans did not reflect patients’ specialist needs.
• There were no audits or plans to review the hospitals effectiveness in meeting the needs of patients who may have autism or a learning disability.
• There was an absence of internal monitoring to improve services.
• When an audit did identify gaps, no robust action plan was put in place.
• The provider was not adequately monitoring the risks around staff skill mix to meet considerable variances in patients’ needs and risks.
• The provider had not taken steps to assure itself about patients’ safety.

However:

• There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs.
• The hospital was clean and well maintained.
• There was emergency equipment available in the event of a health crisis and this was checked daily.
• Medication was prescribed within National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.
• There was good monitoring of patients physical health needs, and treatment was sought promptly, when required.
• Staff received regular supervision.
• We observed consistent supportive and caring interactions between staff and patient.s
• Patients were treated with dignity and respect.
• A recent patient satisfaction survey was positive about the service, 100% of patients felt listened to.
• The hospital had suitable furniture and equipment to meet people’s needs.
• There was an interpreting service available if required.
• There was good access for people who may be wheelchair dependent.
• Patients had access to an art therapy room, computer room and meeting space.
• Locally staff reported feeling well supported and enjoyed working in the service.

Updated 29 June 2016