Rosewood House

Updated 15 July 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 15 June 2021 and was announced.

Updated 15 July 2021

This inspection took place on 28 June 2018 and was unannounced. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 17 people (one shared room is however only ever used by one person, reducing occupancy to 16). The home is a converted house and facilities are over three floors. There is a stair lift in situ but this does not access the two bedrooms on the half-landing. Some of the bedrooms have en-suite facilities. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people living in the home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

When we inspected the service in April 2017 we found there were two breaches of legal requirements and further improvements were required in Well Led. Following that inspection, we asked the provider to submit an action plan telling us what improvements they would make to rectify the breaches. We have assessed this as part of this inspection. The improvements had been made and we have added the detail in the main body of the report.

There was a registered manager in post who had worked at Rosewood House for many years. 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.

People were safe at Rosewood House. Staff received safeguarding vulnerable adult training and were knowledgeable about safeguarding issues. They knew what to do if there were concerns about a person’s welfare and who to report their concerns too. In the majority of cases the care staff would report to the registered manager or the ‘head office’. Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure only suitable staff were employed. The appropriate steps were in place to protect people from being harmed.

As part of the assessment and care planning processes any risks to people’s health and welfare were identified. Their care plans detailed how these risks were managed to reduce or eliminate the risk. Medicines were managed safely and this is an improvement from our last inspection. The premises were well maintained with regular maintenance checks being completed. Checks were also made of the fire safety systems, the hot and cold-water temperatures and any equipment to make sure it was safe for staff and people to use.

Staffing levels were adjusted as and when necessary. Whilst the number of care staff on duty was based on the number of people in residence, account was taken of the care and support needs of each person and any social activities that were taking place in, or outside of the home. People were safe because the staffing levels were sufficient.

People received an effective service. Care staff had mandatory training to complete and any new staff had an induction training programme which prepared them for their role. This ensured the staff team had the necessary skills and knowledge to care for people correctly. Care staff were encouraged to complete nationally recognised qualifications in health and social care.

People’s capacity to make decisions was part of the care planning process. People were always asked to consent before receiving care. They were encouraged to make their own choices about aspects of their daily life. We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were provided with sufficient food and drink. Consideration was given to their likes and dislikes and any specific dietary needs for catered for. Where people were at risk of losing weight, they were provided with supplement drinks or fortified foods. In the hot weather people were offered regular fluids to prevent dehydration. Arrangements were made for people to see their GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to.

People were provided with a caring service. The staff team ensured people were well looked after, treated them with respect and dignity. Each person had a keyworker who would link with the person’s family or friends. People were given the opportunity to take part in a range of different meaningful social activities. There were group activities and external entertainers visited the service on a regular basis.

The service was responsive to people’s individual needs. Assessment and care planning arrangements meant people were provided with person-centred care. The service responded well to changes in people’s care needs. People and relatives were asked to provide feedback about the service they received, were listened to, and actions taken where appropriate.

The service was well-led because there was good leadership and management. The registered manager was experienced. At the start of shifts, care staff received a handover report and were informed of any changes or happenings and staff meetings were held regularly.

The registered provider had a regular programme of audits in place which ensured that the quality and safety of the service was checked. These checks were completed on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.