Rock House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service, since the provider changed legal entities. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way or with dignity and respect. People were not always treated with dignity and respect as some of the practices within the service were not dignified. People were not treated as individuals as the provider implemented blanket approaches to policies that were not always person centred, and people had not been consulted and agreed to restrictions put in place.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff spoke about people with kindness and compassion for example, one staff told us the best part of their job was working with people, and people trusting them. A relative told us, “They tell me staff know about them and staff give them help and support.” However, processes did not always support treating people with dignity. For example, one person’s care plan stated that if they were distressed during the evening they should sleep in a quiet lounge, where they could be monitored via CCTV. This had not been discussed and agreed with the person as in their best interest and was not a dignified or the least restrictive way to support the person during distress.

People were not always treated as individuals, as the provider implemented blanket processes. For example, people were able to drink alcohol, but only in their rooms, not in communal areas. Managers told us they implemented these policies to protect people who had risks around alcohol. However, this was not person centred as this was not assessed on an individual basis, and a policy imposed across all the providers services. There was also no consideration of the risk of people drinking alone in their rooms.

One person told us they wanted a job, but this was not reflected in their care plan. They told us they applied for jobs but had not been successful. There was no evidence of how staff had supported people with their goals and aspirations.

People were not always given full independence and control of their lives. People were given money from the provider to purchase their food for the week. However, the provider told us there were restrictions on how and what people could spend their money on, for example people were not allowed to use the money for sweets or fizzy drinks. People were told they had to allocate some of their budget for a take away on a Saturday night. People did not have full choice or control on which day they had a take-away, or if they wanted to financially contribute. Staff told us, “They (people) have a budget book which states what they can spend. They are not allowed to spend more than £10 on a takeaway. They can have it when ever they want but Saturday is the allocated day.” Staff told us that if the person did not spend the full ‘allowance’ each week, this money was returned to the ‘petty cash’ for the service. However, if someone spent some of their ‘allowance’ on sweets or fizzy drinks that people would ‘have’ to pay this back.

We received mixed feedback from people about the choices and control they had on their lives. One person told us they were not stopped from making their own choices, whilst another person told us, “You are told what to do to a certain extent. They let you get on with it if you take your tablets and don’t cause trouble.”

People’s immediate needs were identified by staff and responded to. For example, one person had declined in their mental health and had become very distressed. Staff were alert to this and increased checks on the person with their consent to ensure their safety. Staff had also escalated concerns to the community mental health team and the GP.

We received mixed feedback from staff relating to the support they received following incidents of distress. Some staff told us they had received a lot of support from the management team, whilst other staff told us they did not. When staff had not received support following incidents of distress, including an opportunity to de-brief they told us they had just accepted this. Staff supported people through complex, emotionally distressing incidents and told us they would have benefitted from the opportunity to have a de-brief.

The registered manager told us that they supported staff following incidents, however there was no formalised process to ensure that staff consistently received support following incidents.