The Rosary Nursing 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

People received nutrition and hydration in line with their needs. People were given choice and supported by staff who knew their requirements around their eating and drinking needs. However, we received mixed feedback regarding the quality of food. The provider carried out audits on the mealtime experience to identify areas of good practice and areas for improvement. Improvements were needed in people’s care plans to ensure they contained best practice guidance and additional information to fully detail people’s individual needs. Staff were aware of people’s healthcare needs and arranged for people to see healthcare professionals as required. There were systems in place to ensure people’s health and wellbeing was monitored. People were supported to engage in physical activity through the range of activities that were offered at the home. The service was working within the principles of The Mental capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Care and support plans gave information about people’s ability to consent and anyone who had authority to act on their behalf.

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 look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff were aware of people’s requirements around their eating and drinking needs. Staff said they received training to help them keep up to date with current good practice and legislation. The registered manager told us they had arranged additional training for staff to support them with documentation and recording.

People's care plans did not always include full best practice instructions. For example, the positioning of people when they were receiving their nutrition via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Some of the care plans required additional information to fully detail people’s individual needs. One person’s care plan contained conflicting information on how they were supported at mealtimes. We discussed this with the registered manager who addressed this during the assessment. There was a set menu, but this had been adapted to meet people’s needs and likes. The provider carried out audits on the mealtime experience to identify areas of good practice and areas for improvement.

We received some mixed feedback regarding the food. One person told us, “It's [food] gone a bit down. You do get a choice and they will always make you something else if you don't like it.” Another commented they thought the food was “Tasteless.” Other comments from people included, “The food is very good, the best is the fried breakfast that I have every morning” and “The food is lovely, you have a choice, its nicely cooked and well presented.” One relative told us, “The food is very good, and [name of person] has a choice, they [staff] work round you.” People received nutrition and hydration in line with their needs. Observations of lunch showed people received a good diet and were given choice. People were shown two plates of food to choose from, but other options were available if people wanted them. People received care and support in line with their needs.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff told us they were aware of people’s healthcare needs. One staff member told us, “People have a pre-assessment before they come here, and we are told about any health needs, like diabetes. We get to know the residents and read the care plans.” Staff told us the GP did not visit the service regularly; however, they were able to ring the surgery for support and advice when needed. Nurses told us they had a good working relationship with professionals. The registered manager told us daily meetings were held and any specific issues relating to people were identified and addressed. The registered manager told us how people had been supported to use a ‘MOTIVIEW bike’ which is a cycling experience that includes a video library of countries around the world. The registered manager told us, “Residents are able to engage physically, mentally and socially from the comfort of their seats. We have cycled through different countries and local areas and areas where the residents have spent time, perhaps on holiday or where they have lived.”

Staff arranged for people to see healthcare professionals as required and ensured their healthcare needs were met. One person told us, “The nurses are good. I'm usually quite well but if we are ill the GP will see you. We have nurses here every day so that's good.” People were supported to engage in physical activity through the range of activities that were offered at the home.

The service maintained relationships with external members of the multi-disciplinary team. People were referred for specialist input when required. For example, people were reviewed by the falls team, the tissue viability nurse, speech and language therapy (SALT) and the diabetes nurse. There were systems in place to ensure people’s health and well-being was monitored.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People told us staff respected their wishes relating to the care and support they received. One person told us, “They ask you [if you would like something], if you say no, it's fine. It's my choice." Other comments from people included, “I've no problems with them [staff]. They chat to us, and they do take it on board” and “I get up when I want to, and I go to bed when I want to, I can have a bath or shower whenever I want.” People’s relatives told us they felt involved in their loved ones care. One relative told us, “You are listened to.” Another told us they visited every day, and they had good relationships with the staff. They confirmed their views were taken into account. We observed people were asked if they were happy to be supported. Such as helping people to move from one place to another, using a stand aid and being helped with meals. We saw 1 instance where a staff member attempted to cut a person’s nails. The person objected and staff respected this.

Care and support plans gave information about people’s ability to consent and anyone who had authority to act on their behalf. For example, 1 care plan stated relatives had Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for health and finance. People had treatment escalation plans (TEPs) in place. These were in the process of being reviewed and updated by the nurses. The TEPs we reviewed were up to date and personal to the individual.

Staff spoken with had an understanding of people’s capacity. Staff said they consulted with relatives where they were able to. Staff told us about 1 person who was sat in their room, they commented, “They have capacity to decide where they want to be, and they seem to mainly choose to stay in their room.”