Rosebank Lodge

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained 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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans contained personalised information about people’s unique strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes. Peoples relatives told us staff treated their family members as individuals and care staff were familiar with their needs, preferences and daily routines.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Relatives told us staff were familiar with the diverse health and personal care needs, preferences and daily routines of their family members.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff ensured people had access to information in formats they could understand. Staff demonstrated good awareness, skills and understanding of individual communication needs, they knew how to facilitate communication and when people were trying to tell them something. For example, people’s views were sought in relation to planning the food menus and social activities programme through the use of sensory profiles, objects of reference, specialist sign language for people with learning disabilities and Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) cards. Specialist sign language and PECS are two ways people living with learning disabilities and autism can effectively communicate without relying on speech and language. We also found easy-read information displayed in communal areas for people on how to raise a complaint and who was available to support them that day.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People used a mixture of verbal communication, body language, gestures and sounds to express themselves. People’s communication needs were identified, recorded, and highlighted in their care plan. These individual communication plans detailed peoples preferred methods of communication, including the approach to use for different situations. For example, guidance was in place for staff to support them to understand how people would use their body movements to gesture; and what the person's response would mean. During our assessment we observed staff use easy to understand photos and pictorial images to help people make informed decisions about what they would like to do each day. Opportunities were given to people to response at their own pace using their preferred method of communication. The provider had a complaints policy which detailed how people could raise concerns if they were dissatisfied with the service they received and the process for dealing with their concerns. Relatives confirmed they felt able to speak openly with staff if they had any concerns and were confident appropriate action would be taken to address those concerns. Complaints were logged, responded to appropriately and actions were identified to improve the service. Records showed that the provider had taken action and responded appropriately to complaints when they were raised.

The service did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People did not always have sufficient opportunities to engage in meaningful activities that reflected their social interests. Daily activity programmes were in place for each person, which reflected their social interests and activities they had expressed a wish to participate in. During our assessment we observed staff supporting some people to participate in activities in the wider community however, we saw most people were not engaged in any particularly meaningful social activities. For example, a stated aim in one person’s care plan was to access the wider community at least 4 times a week, but we found no evidence to demonstrate this was happening on a regular basis. A relative told us, “It was agreed my [family member] should go out every day for a walk or to go to the local shops, but this isn’t happening as staff had promised.” Another relative added, “My [family member] would definitely like to go out more but there’s just not enough happening in terms of trips and community-based social activities.” We discussed these issues with the new managers who acknowledged opportunities for people had to engage in meaningful social activities they had expressed an interest in doing needed to be significantly improved. Managers told us plans to improve people’s social activities programmes and make the sensory room fully operational again was a priority. Progress made by the provider to achieve this stated aim will be closely monitored by the CQC.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People had their human rights and diversity respected and were treated with compassion by staff. Care plans contained detailed information about people’s spiritual and cultural needs. This helped staff understand people’s specific cultural heritage and spiritual needs and wishes and knew how to protect them from discriminatory behaviours and practices. For example, staff told us they routinely lived streamed catholic services from the Vatican at the request of one service user.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People did not require any support with end of life care at the time of our assessment. However, people and people important to them had not been actively encouraged or supported to make decisions about their end of life wishes, despite care plans having a section where individuals end of life care and support needs and wishes could be recorded. We discussed this issue with new managers who agreed steps should be taken to try and gather people’s wishes regarding their end of life care and if people and their families did not want to discuss this matter it still needed to be recorded and how they planned to revisit the subject in the future.