Rosehill Care

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 inspection of this newly registered service and therefore we assessed all 7 quality statements from this key question. Based on the findings of this assessment, our rating for this key question is good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff knew about people’s preferences and wishes and treated everyone as an individual. Staff ensured they communicated and shared information with people in a way they could easily understand. Care plans gave a good overview of people's support needs. People were treated fairly and free from the fear of being discriminated against. People were supported to understand their equality and human rights and how staff and managers would respect these. Staff supported people to plan for their end of their life care.

This service scored 75 (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 treated them as individuals and care staff who regularly supported them at home were familiar with their needs, preferences and daily routines. A relative said, “We asked specifically for female only carers who can speak my [family members] native tongue, which the providers ensured happened. They deserve a lot of credit for that.” People, and those important to them, also took part in making decisions and planning of the personal care package they received at home.

Staff demonstrated good awareness of people’s individual personal care needs and preferences and ensured the people they supported received person-centred care from them.

People told us they received personal care and support from staff who were familiar with their individual needs, preferences and daily routines.

Staff were familiar with the personal care needs, preferences and daily routines of the people they regularly supported.

No information received from partners in relation to this quality statement.

Care plans contained detailed information about peoples personal care needs, preferences and daily routines of the people they regularly supported.

People told us they were provided with accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to their individual communication needs.

Managers and staff confirmed they could supply people with information about the service in accessible formats as and when this was requested.

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

People told us the registered manager routinely sought their views about the quality of the home care service they were provided. A person said, “[name of registered manager] comes to visit me at home every week and often calls me on the telephone to see how I’m doing and to ask if I’m still happy with my carers, which I absolutely am.” A relative added, “My [family member] didn’t get along so well with one carer, so we were pleased when the manager [registered] was quick to replace that particular person, who was genuinely nice by the way, with someone my [family members] did like. This has worked out really well and we do appreciate how understanding and proactive the agency has been in dealing with this delicate matter.”

The provider valued and listened to the views of staff. Staff were encouraged to contribute their ideas about what the service did well and what they could do better during regular individual and group meetings with the registered manager.

The provider gathered the views of people using the service and their relatives to improve the quality of the home care service they provided.

People could access the personal care and support they required when they needed it.

Staff understood people had a right to receive the personal care and support which met their specific individual needs and wishes.

No information received from partners.

People received care and support from staff according to their individually assessed needs and wishes. People had access to external community health care and social care professionals as and when they needed them.

People were provided with the care and support they wanted based on their specific needs. A relative said, “The provider does try and match my [family member] with staff who can speak the same first language which ensures they have a good understanding of my [family members] needs and culture.”

Staff understood people had a right to be treated equally and fairly. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s diverse cultural heritage and spiritual needs, and how to protect them from discriminatory behaviours and practices. The registered manager confirmed they ensured people who had requested to have gender specific care staff to provide their personal care was met.

People’s care plans contained detailed information about their individual wishes and preferences in relation to how their social, cultural and spiritual needs should be met. This meant staff had access to information about how people should be supported with their specific cultural and spiritual needs and wishes. Training records showed staff received equality and diversity training to help them make sure people were not subjected to discriminatory behaviours and practices.

At the time of our assessment no one using the service required end of life care.

Staff told us they had received end of life care training. A member of staff said, “I don’t currently support anyone receiving end of life care, but I have done the training.”

Care plans had a section where their end of life care and support needs and wishes could be recorded if people chose to share this information with the provider. People also had ‘Do not resuscitate’ information recorded in their care plans.