Ros and Mos House Support Ltd

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 provider 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 provider had not always ensured people’s care was person-centred. People’s care plans were not adequately personalised to reflect what was important to them. It was not always clear from people’s care records how they had been involved in making decisions about how and when they wanted their care. However, people’s relatives told us staff understood how people liked to be supported and provided care which met their needs.

The provider understood people’s different health and care needs and delivered consistent support in a way which worked well for people and their relatives. The provider responded flexibly to people’s requests and adapted their staff rotas as appropriate.

The provider supplied information to people in formats tailored to their individual needs. The registered manager told us they were able to adapt documents and produce easy read versions as and when required.

The provider had processes in place to gather feedback from people and those important to them. People’s relatives told us they saw the registered manager frequently and were able to discuss any concerns easily. The registered manager told us they kept in regular contact with people and their relatives and completed monthly feedback forms with them to check they were happy with their care.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People, relatives and staff knew how to contact the provider and how to access the service’s out of hours support when needed.

The provider had considered the needs of people who were more likely to encounter inequality in experience or outcomes and provided staff with additional training to understand the impact of this. For example, staff had received training around supporting people living with dementia to promote better awareness.

The provider had not always ensured people were 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. The provider’s initial assessment and care plan documentation did not include consideration for people’s future wishes. Following our feedback, the registered manager confirmed they would review their documentation to ensure this was considered.