Social care report - Riverside House

The report presents the findings of a mystery shopping exercise commissioned by ADASS and carried out by Healthwatch Rotherham to assess how accessible and effective Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’s Adult Social Care services are. The exercise took place across multiple contact routes, including face‑to‑face visits, telephone calls (in hours and out of hours), email, the council website, and a public feedback survey.

Overall access to Adult Social Care was rated an average of 2.7 out of 5, based on nine mystery shop interactions. Experiences varied significantly depending on how people contacted the service. Staff were generally polite, friendly, and empathetic, and the council building was described as clean, accessible, and well located. However, there were inconsistencies in the level and quality of information provided, particularly at reception and through some telephone and email interactions.

Face‑to‑face visits highlighted that reception staff were welcoming but often unable to provide basic information about Adult Social Care services. Visitors were frequently signposted to telephone numbers or the website without explanation of what support was available or what to expect next. A lack of printed information or leaflets was a recurring issue, limiting access for people who struggle with digital information.

Telephone experiences during office hours were mixed. Some callers received detailed, knowledgeable advice about assessments, equipment, care options, and local support services, while others experienced long waits and limited staff knowledge, particularly around community activities and loneliness support. Out‑of‑hours calls were answered quickly but provided very little information, with callers often told to make contact again during office hours without being signposted to online resources or safeguarding guidance.

Email responses were prompt but often felt impersonal. In some cases, staff requested personal details for referrals before responding to requests for general information, which left carers feeling unsupported and unheard. There was limited empathy shown in written responses, and little signposting to wider community or voluntary sector support.

The website contained a large amount of information and was generally accurate and reliable, particularly for safeguarding and carers’ support. However, users often struggled to know where to start due to the volume of content, repetitive navigation, and large numbers of search results. Easy Read and accessible formats were available but usually had to be requested, which could be discouraging. The use of the chatbot improved navigation for some users.

The public voice survey showed mixed experiences. Many people praised fast responses, good communication, and particularly the value of having a named social worker who provided consistent, compassionate support. Others raised concerns about poor follow‑up, lack of confirmation after referrals, difficulty reaching staff, and systems feeling “faceless.” Experiences were polarised, with very high and very low satisfaction scores reported.

The report concludes that Adult Social Care in Rotherham has a solid foundation, with committed staff and a wide range of information available. However, improvements are needed in communication, consistency, signposting, website usability, and access for non‑digital users. Clearer explanations of processes, better follow‑up, more visible local support information, and stronger customer care at first points of contact would help create a more consistent and reassuring experience for residents.