Rock House

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

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’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation relating to person centred care. People did not always receive person centred care. Care plans and risk assessments were not specific to people and people’s histories were not fully documented or known by staff. Staff told us they supported people to access healthcare services, however the documentation around this was poor, and there was limited evidence that people were supported to re-engage with all services. Staff did support people consistently to access support for their mental health.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not consistently receive person centred care specific to their needs. Care plans were not sufficiently detailed, and did not provide sufficient detail and history about people and their needs. For example, when there were specific dates that caused distress to people this was not sufficiently documented within people’s care plans to inform staff. Staff had varying knowledge of people’s needs and histories, and this was not always documented within people’s care plans. Staff told us about one person’s history, but when we discussed this with the registered manager, they told us this information was incorrect. There was no information within the care plan about this part of the persons life.

Staff told us people had been encouraged to learn new skills. However, staff also told us that they made all of people’s meals, did people’s laundry and cleaned their rooms and communal areas. Staff told us they encouraged people to take part in clubs and groups or complete college courses but there was limited evidence that this actually occurred.

People’s care and treatment was mostly delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. Staff worked with other services to co-ordinate and provide joined up care, however this was not always effective. People often disengaged with services, and when they did this staff told us they encourage them to re-engage. There was limited evidence that this was being done consistently for some health services for example seeing the dentist, however people were consistently supported to access mental health support.

Whilst information was not always up to date, the registered manager ensured that information was available for people to access. People were able to access their health and care records, and there was some evidence that people had reviewed and consented to some areas of their care. However, information was not always accurate and up to date or tailored to individual needs. We discussed this with the registered manager, who advised they would review and update care plans to ensure if people wanted to review care plans they would be accurate.

People were given the opportunity to feedback about their experience of care and support and knew how to raise concerns. Whilst people could raise concerns with the registered manager, there were other systems in place for people to raise concerns anonymously.

Complaints had been dealt with appropriately by the registered manager. One complaint had been raised and addressed by the manager. A relative told us, “I haven’t had reason to raise anything.”

Staff and the registered manager did not always support people to access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People often disengaged from services, and whilst staff told us they supported them to re-engage where possible, this was not always documented and evidenced.

The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of protected characteristics and understood ways of making reasonable adjustments for people to remove any potential barriers.

Staff and the registered manager had some understanding regarding discrimination and inequality which could disadvantage people living at the service. However, people were not always empowered by staff to make their own choices, which didn’t consistently uphold their human rights. This was not identified by leaders at the service.

People had end of life care plans, however there was limited information for staff to follow. We discussed this with the registered manager and provider, and they confirmed people did not always want to discuss their end of life wishes. It was not always documented how staff attempted to discuss people’s wishes, or other attempts made to understand people’s end of life wishes. At the time of the assessment there was no one who was in receipt of end of life care.