Roseside

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

People’s care plans contained some person centred information on their needs, wishes and preferences. People’s care plans however were not always clear or followed by staff which increased the risk of their needs not being met as agreed. Some people lived with mental health conditions that caused anxiety and distress. The care plans did not adequately advise staff how to support the person in a person centred way during episodes of distress. Some of these people also had communication difficulties which were not adequately supported. This may have increased their episodes of distress and anxiety. Where people experienced behaviours of concerns, there was a lack of understanding of positive behaviour support planning and what a what a positive behaviour support plan should entail to maximise positive outcomes in mental health.

People told us staff were kind, caring and supported them with the things they needed help with for example, washing and dressing, mobilising and eating and drinking. A relative told us, “The girls are great and always make me feel welcome and reassured he (the person) is in the right place”.

Staff told us they had time to get to know the people they were caring for and enjoyed supporting them. They felt the service put people first and treated them with compassion. One staff member told us, “It is a happy environment, people are happy, and I feel like we are helping them”.

We observed staff were kind, caring and patient when providing support to people. People were encouraged and support to maintain positive relationships with the people important to them. People’s relatives and friends could visit without restriction.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us staff were kind and treated them with respect. A relative told us, “The girls are great and always make me feel welcome and reassured he (the person) is in the right place”.

Staff felt the service put people first and treated them with compassion. One staff member told us, “It is a happy environment, people are happy, and I feel like we are helping them”.

Some staff had taken on the responsibility of being a dignity or values champion to ensure a positive living and working culture at the service.

Partners provided no feedback in this area.

We observed staff were kind, caring and patient when providing support to people.

People’s care plans contained some person centred information on their needs, wishes and preferences. People’s care plans however were not always clear or followed by staff which increased the risk of their needs not being met as agreed. For example, one person’s hospital passport stated they preferred a bath. Their personal hygiene care plan however stated they preferred a shower.

Some people’s communication needs were not actively supported to help them engage with and play an active part as possible in their own care and treatment journey. This meant there were missed opportunities to positively engage with the person and foster good relations to improve the person’s quality of life.

Some people lived with mental health conditions that caused anxiety and distress. The care plans did not adequately advise staff how to support the person in a person centred way during episodes of distress.

People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. Families and friends were welcome to visit the service whenever they wanted.

People chose when they went to bed, and when they woke up. People had time to themselves and an opportunity to join in a range of social and recreational activities if they wanted.

Holistic assessments of people’s mental health needs including associated behaviours, had not been undertaken and staff lacked adequate positive behaviour plans. Poor mental health and a lack of robust positive behaviour support plans in relation to people’s emotional well-being meant the ability of staff to use these techniques was impacted.

There was a lack of understanding at the service of what a positive behaviour support plan should entail to maximise positive outcomes in mental health.

We observed that people’s support was not always provided in a person centred way in accordance with their care plan.

Processes were in place to assess people’s needs, choices and preferences. Where choices and preferences had been identified however, these were not always effectively promoted in the delivery of their care. For example, two people indicated they preferred less intrusive support but the intensity of their support had been increased without evidence of a clear rationale. Some people's dietary likes and dislikes had not been obtained to ensure good nutrition and hydration was being promoted. Some people's daily routines lacked evidence that they undertook the social and recreational activities they enjoyed to promote well-being.

The provider had a positive behaviour support policy in place but this had not been followed to appropriately plan people’s care around their mental health needs.

People’s care plans contained information on what everyday tasks they do independently, and what they needed help with. People’s preferred daily routines were also identified. We found however some people’s independence was restricted due to increased supervision. For example, one person’s agreed hourly welfare checks were increased to every 15 minutes, without a clear rationale and evidence this was in the person’s best interests. This did not show people’s right to independence, choice and control were fully respected at all times.

Staff told us they had time to get to know the people they were caring for and enjoyed supporting them.

We observed staff were patient and treated people with dignity and respect.

There were processes in place to enable some people to be involved in their care, however these were not used effectively to ensure everyone living in the home was able to participate. For example, there was little evidence that people with communication needs were supported appropriately to be involved in discussions or decisions about their care. Care reviews took place monthly but there was limited documented evidence that people's own opinion was captured and documented during this process.

There were processes in place to support people to maintain contact with family and friends and records showed this was encouraged.

We reviewed care records and found that people’s immediate needs were not always responded to. There were gaps in the care provided to people in respect of continence care, bowel management, nutrition and hydrations and the clinical response to early warning signs of diabetic complications.

People’s immediate medicine needs were not always met due to a lack of available stock in the home to give. This meant some people missed doses of their medication, which increased the risk of unwanted side effects or symptoms.

The manager and nursing team did not have sufficient oversight of people’s care to ensure people’s immediate needs were met.

We observed care staff supporting people with drinks, snacks and activities during our visit in a timely manner. However, we did not directly observe the delivery of clinical care during our assessment. We reviewed people's clinical and day to day care as documented in their care records which showed that people's immediate needs in relation to medical conditions, nutritional care, skin integrity, behaviour and medicines were not always met.

Staff felt supported and enjoyed working in the home and for the provider.

There were processes in place to promote the wellbeing of staff which included training, supervision, staff development and recognition systems.