Rosemount Home

Rosemount Home is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 16 people. The service provides support to older people, some of whom are living with a dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Since the last inspection the provider had made improvements to the way laundry was managed and equipment was stored, which meant people were protected from the risk of cross contamination. Improvements to the building included a new laundry area, a new food storage area and a new boiler.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff were aware of the safeguarding protocols and knew what action to take to keep people safe. Risks to people were identified and detailed assessments were in place, to ensure risks were managed safely. Medicines were managed safely. The premises were clean and there were good infection control practices in place.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager had effective oversight of the service. Quality checks were effective in identifying and generating improvements to ensure the safety and quality of the care people received. Staff were valued and felt supported in their work. People and relatives said they would recommend the service to others. Staff worked effectively alongside other health and social care professionals to ensure people's needs were met and their health maintained.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 14 April 2022).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last comprehensive inspection (report published 13 February 2020) to calculate the overall rating.

The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good based on the findings of this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Rosemount Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Rosemount Home is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 16 people. The service provides support to older people and people with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people using the service. Rosemount Home accommodates people in one adapted building.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We have made a recommendation about infection control practices and risk assessments needed to support best practice. Additional competency checks and spot checks were implemented by the registered manager following our inspection with all staff regarding safe use of Personal Protective Equipment as well as competency checks.

We received positive feedback from people and their relatives who told us they were happy living at Rosemount care home. People received personalised care and the staff team knew people very well. People and their relatives felt safe living at Rosemount Home and their care outcomes were met.

Medicines were administered and managed and recorded safely. Peoples care plans were person-centred and covered all aspects of people’s care, including people’s personal safety.

There were systems in place for communicating with people, their relatives and staff regarding people’s care and support. This included one to one meetings, handovers and team meetings. The environment was clean, safe and maintained to a good standard. It was also adapted to meet people’s needs.

Individualised risk assessments were in place to ensure people could take risks safely. Procedures were in place and followed by staff about how to raise concerns to safeguard people. Robust recruitment and selection procedures ensured suitable staff were employed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 12 February 2020).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively. This included checking the provider was meeting COVID-19 vaccination requirements. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Rosemount Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Rosemount is a residential care home providing personal care to 16 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. Nursing care is not provided. The service can support up to 16 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People felt safe and secure living in the home. People and their relatives were very happy with the service and had good relationships with staff members.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed effectively. Staff followed infection prevention and control guidelines. The premises were well maintained, clean and tidy. There was a warm and welcoming atmosphere.

People were supported by kind and caring staff. People and relatives said the quality of care was excellent as people were treated with respect and valued as individuals. Relatives told us people received person-centred care which improved their wellbeing. Professionals gave us good feedback about the service.

The registered manager had nurtured a culture where people were placed first; this was evident in the way staff supported people. Staff had given up their free time to participate in a bag packing day at a local shop which raised over £1000 for the residents’ fund. Staff spoke about people who used the service with great affection and respect, like they were family.

Staff sought people's consent before providing care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs and preferences. Staff knew people's needs well. People and relatives knew how to raise concerns but nobody we spoke with had any. There were a wide range of activities for people to enjoy both inside the home and in the local community.

People and relatives felt the service was well managed. An effective quality assurance process was in place. People and relatives were regularly consulted about the quality of the service via meetings and surveys. Staff were involved in the ongoing development and improvement of the service through regular meetings.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 28 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At our last inspection carried out in May 2015, the service was rated as “Good”. At this inspection we found the service remained “Good”.

This inspection was carried out on 30 May and 5 June 2017 and was unannounced.

The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The staff had received consistent high praise from relatives and people who used the service for their caring approach. Relatives felt staff went the extra mile to support people. The staff formed good working relationships with the people they looked after but also genuinely cared about them. People felt they were well looked after.

Relatives described to us the exceptional support they had received from staff as people neared the end of their life.

We saw people and their family members were given opportunities to be involved in the service including a suggestions box, attendance at meetings and in providing information about their care needs.

We found people were cared for in an environment which was safe. Regular checks including fire checks were carried out in the home. Risk assessments were carried out and actions put in place to mitigate risks people faced.

Checks were carried out on prospective staff to see if they were suitable before they started working in the home. Staff were supported to develop their knowledge and skills by an induction, training, supervision and annual appraisals.

There were enough staff on duty. People were attended to promptly and supported without being rushed.

We saw regular cleaning was carried out in the home and everywhere was clean and tidy. Relatives confirmed this was the case.

Adaptations to the building had been made to incorporate en-suite bathrooms and toilets in people’s bedrooms. Funding had been raised to install a new nurse call system.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Relatives and people who used the service made positive comments about the registered manager who was a visible presence in the home.

We found the provider and the registered manager used audits and surveys to monitor the quality of the service delivered and put in place actions to make improvements.

The trustees of the home held regular meetings to monitor the service. The registered manager was accountable in these meetings to the trustees who each had a role to support the running of the home.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. They said they felt safe. We found safeguarding procedures to be robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager told us about an application that had been submitted. We also found relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded as required.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

The registered manager set the staff rotas, they told us they took people's care needs into account when making decisions about the staffing numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were met.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that any unsafe practice was identified; this helped to protect people who used the service.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant people could access additional support when required.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they or their representatives were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, social, mobility, equipment and dementia care needs had been identified in care plans where required. Some people said they had been involved and consulted about them and they reflected their current needs.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical, memory and mental health impairments.

Visitors confirmed they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'I never feel rushed by the staff that help me, they help me to do things for myself'. A relative said, 'I visit my relative almost every day and the staff are good at listening to any concerns that I raise and always respond appropriately."

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised, we saw these had generally been addressed by the provider.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs were recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly.

People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. The records we looked at showed any shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance systems in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.

Comments from people who used the service included, 'The staff are very kind. The carers are very good, 'Everything is good here. The staff are very nice.'

A visitor said, 'I am very satisfied. I am happy with the care my relative is receiving." Another said, "The home is just wonderful."

A relative told us they felt very welcome to visit the home at any time. They said, 'I couldn't fault the care. I live nearby and I can come and see my relative when I want to. This place is excellent and everyone is so friendly.'

People who used the service and their representatives said there were enough staff to meet their needs appropriately.

The provider operated an effective complaints system. We found people who used the service were aware of the complaints procedures, and they told us their comments and concerns were listened to and acted upon.

We also found the provider had an effective system in place to ensure all records were kept secure and remained confidential.

Suitable arrangements were in place for people to take part in activities in line with their needs and preferences.

The relationships between staff and the people who lived there were good and personal support was provided in a way that promoted and protected their privacy and dignity.

Suitable arrangements were in place for handling complaints and for protecting people from abuse. One person told us they could share any concerns with the staff and felt their views were listened to. Another person said 'This place couldn't be faulted. I love living here because all my needs are taken care of and I feel safe.'

There was a stable and competent staff team who had the training, skills and experience to meet the specific conditions of the people who lived there.