Rosclare Residential Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s needs were regularly reviewed to ensure they received appropriate care according to their need. Care and support was delivered in line with best practice guidance in order to achieve best possible outcomes for people. Staff worked with other health and social care providers to ensure people received coordinated and consistent care. Staff liaised with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met and their wellbeing maintained. People’s capacity to consent to care was regularly assessed and staff followed best interest decisions where they felt people did not have the capacity to consent to elements of their care. This was done in liaison with people’s relatives and relevant health and social care professionals. However, we found that information about how these decisions were made were not always suitably recorded in people’s care records. The registered manager told us they would ensure that all information discussed during these reviews were documented in order to maintain clear documentation on decision making.

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’s individual progress was regularly assessed making sure the staff team were provided with relevant and up to date information about people’s changing support needs. A family member told us, “There are regular reviews of my relative’s care. That’s all OK.” People were allocated a staff member as their key worker who championed their views and co-ordinated their support on an on-going basis.

Staff monitored people’s health regularly to identify any changes in care and support needs. Staff told us they carried out monthly review of people’s health needs, including weight checks so that any changes identified could be shared with the healthcare professionals.

Regular reviews took place to discuss people’s changing care needs and choices. Processes were in place to ensure on-going monitoring of people’s health conditions, mobility and nutrition which helped the staff team to capture improvements and any changes required to care delivery. For example, where a person started refusing personal care and required a different approach from staff to ensure their personal care needs were met.

People received support in line with evidence-based practice, including in line with nutritional needs. Their comments included, “There is enough food, I’m not hungry. [Staff] bring tea and biscuits to the TV room”, “It’s all freshly cooked” and “I’m perfectly happy with the food. There are plenty of drinks too.”

Staff told us how people’s choices were adhered to during their mealtimes. Their comments included, “We have a supply of food and if anyone asks for something different, we can make it” and “[People] get their preferences, but we still show them the meals to choose from. If they like different options, we give what they want. We know the way they like their food.”

People were involved in choosing and planning of the food menu. Processes were in place to gather feedback from people in relation to the food being provided to them. Regular ‘Food Surveys’ were carried out asking people about the quality and variety of the meals they received and their favourite meals. Results showed that people’s feedback was mainly positive. Mealtimes were flexible and people received support to eat in line with their cultural and religious preferences.

People experienced support from a range of health and social care professionals to ensure all their needs were met. One person told us, “I can see a doctor if I need to. It’s very useful because he is only a couple of doors away.” We also observed a district nurse visiting another resident. They confirmed they came daily to ensure their nursing needs were met.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and worked well as a team. Staff told us tasks were allocated on a daily basis so they knew what they were leading on and who they were working with. These daily schedules were flexed in line with people’s needs and choices. For example, a staff member told us, “Most of the time, we see residents’ reactions. If they don’t want to come out of their bed, we know they are not ready for the shower.”

Health and social care professionals working with the service felt there was good communication and team working to ensure people received effective care and support. Comments we received included, “Staff are warm and amicable we work well as a team” and “Staff definitely take on board our recommendations and advice but equally give feedback if there is something in our care plan that isn’t working.”

Systems and processes were in place to ensure good communication between the staff team. Regular staff meetings were held to discuss matters arising and changes needed to people’s care needs. Electronic devices were used by the management team to pass on information quickly to staff, for example if an urgent health appointment was planned.

People felt confident to approach the staff team for support if they felt unwell. People’s comments included, “I would let [staff] know if I wasn’t feeling well.” A family member commented, “[Staff] keep us informed about [my relative’s] health and medication.” People’s medicines were regularly reviewed by the visiting GP to ensure they continued to meet their intended use.

The management team were involved in monitoring people’s healthcare needs. The registered manager had systems in place which notified them about people’s changing care needs and where they required support from healthcare professionals, including an occupational therapist and mental health nurse. Monitoring charts were used by the staff team to share information with the healthcare professionals as necessary.

Involvement from healthcare professionals was sought when people required their support. Records showed that the healthcare referrals were made in good time and when necessary to support people’s well-being. Recommendations made by the speech and language therapist, GP and psychiatrist were followed by the staff team aiming to improve people’s health conditions.

People felt their well-being was considered by the staff team and their care needs were well met by the service. Records showed that in 2024 the home received several compliments from people’s family members and there were no formal complaints raised. Staff were praised for their hard work, dedication, and promotion of people’s wellbeing.

The management team had demonstrated evidence of continuous monitoring and improving of people’s care. The registered manager had a good understanding of people’s care needs and the support they required to address individual matters.

Support focused on people’s quality of life outcomes. A survey was carried out to gather people’s feedback about their care. They felt well looked after by the staff who were kind and respectful towards them. Staff also encouraged people to have open conversations with them and approached them informally to gather their views on how the support could be improved. This was recorded as ‘Residents’ consultations’.

People’s consent to care and treatment was gained by the provider before they started using the service. People were asked to sign an agreement for services to be provided to them where they had the capacity to do so.

Staff applied the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) in practice to support people in the decision-making process. Staff told us how they supported people based on their individual wishes and in accordance with the principals of person-centred care. This included asking people’s consent before they started providing support to them.

Processes were in place to apply, monitor and request to renew the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications when necessary. Any conditions placed by the local authority were reflected in people’s care records to ensure it was fulfilled. Records showed mental capacity assessments were completed by the service to support people in the decision-making process, followed by best interest decisions where necessary. However, these assessments did not always clearly document as to how the decision was reached. This was discussed with the registered manager who assured us that the documentation in relation to the mental capacity assessments would be reviewed.