We carried out a review of the data available to us about Rockny House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Rockny House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice,
¿ Visiting policies were in place for external health care professionals. These included taking and recording body temperatures and wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in line with current guidance.
¿ People and their relatives were supported to communicate by the use of pre- arranged window visits. People also had access to telephone and electronic devices to make telephone and video calls to their family and friends.
¿ People were supported to engage in activities that promoted social distancing in line with current guidance.
¿ People were supported to go out into the community wearing a face covering. Staff ensured people were equipped with sanitiser and complied with social distancing when they were out of the home.
¿ People were admitted to the home safely in line with current guidance. There had been a new admission and the registered manager had taken appropriate steps to minimise any risks of infection being brought into the home. This included, the person entering the home by a side door on arrival so not having to walk through the premises and then the period of self-isolation.
¿ The premises were visually clean, hygienic and uncluttered. Dedicated cleaning staff were employed to undertake cleaning duties and cleaning schedules were complied with.
¿ People were supported by staff who were trained in Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) and wore PPE in line with current guidance. The management regularly monitored staff to ensure they were adhering to safe IPC practices.
The care service had not originally been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. However, it was clear that people living in Rockny House were given choices and their independence and participation within the local community had been and was continuing to be encouraged and enabled.
At our last inspection in January 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
The inspection took place on 11 December 2018 and was unannounced.
There was a registered manager in post who was there at the time of the inspection. 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 continued to receive care that made them feel safe and staff understood how to protect people from abuse and harm. Risks to people were assessed and guidance about how to manage these was available for staff to refer to and follow, although all staff were clear about action they would take. Recruitment of staff was carried out to ensure that adequate numbers of suitable staff were available to support people. People received medicines as they were required.
People continued to receive effective support from staff who had a sufficient level of skill and knowledge to meet their specific needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible, whilst involving them as much as possible to make decisions. The policies and systems in the home supported this practice.
People continued to be cared for by staff who displayed kindness and compassion in ways that upheld their privacy and dignity. Staff ensured that people were supported to make choices and maintain a good level of independence in line with their abilities and wishes. People’s diverse needs were recognised and support and access to activities was supported and enabled by staff.
The provider had effective systems in place that were used to regularly review people’s care and support that had been provided. Care plans and detailed assessments were individual and contained a wealth of information about people, their needs, their wishes and cultural needs.
People using the service were well known by staff and the staff team continued to work consistently to ensure that support provided respected their needs. Peoples own communications methods were well known and understood by staff who were keen to advocate on behalf of people whenever they were unhappy, wanted to make preferences known, or wanted to raise an issue.
The care home continued to be well-led, with checks and monitoring arrangements used to maintain the quality of the service provided. Staff were positive about the leadership and skills of the registered manager and people using the service had a good relationship with the registered manager too. Required information was available in the home and made available when requested.
Further information is in the detailed findings in the full report.
This inspection took place on 13 January 2016 and was unannounced.
The inspection team consisted of one inspector. As part of the inspection we looked at information we held about the service provided at the home. This included statutory notifications. Statutory notifications include important events and occurrences which the provider is required to send us by law. We also looked at information the provider had returned to us. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR).This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
We saw how staff cared and supported people who lived at the home throughout the inspection. Some people were unable to communicate with us verbally so we used different ways to communicate with people. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection, (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
We spoke with five people who lived at the home and four relatives of people living in the home at the time of our inspection. We spoke with one of the registered managers, five support staff and one visiting health professional. We spoke with Worcestershire County Council’s quality and contract team and Healthwatch to find out their views of the quality of the care. Both of these services monitor the quality and the experience of people using social care services.
We looked at three people's care records and medication records. We also looked at records and minutes of meetings with staff and people who lived at the home and surveys people had completed. We looked at the complaints, compliments records and quality assurance audits which were completed by the registered manager.
People told us they felt safe in the company of care staff and in the way they cared for them. Risk assessments were in place to manage people’s individual risks, so people could be cared for safely. There were enough care staff employed to care for people using the service. Some people chose to look after their own medicines and just wanted care staff to remind them to take it. This was respected. Where people needed help to take their medicines, care staff were trained to ensure these were managed appropriately.
Care staff had the skills and knowledge to care for people effectively. Care staff were trained to meet the individual needs of the people they supported. Care staff knew people’s individual preferences and histories, so they could provide care the way people preferred. People had been involved in making decisions about their care, through care planning and reviews. All care staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) ensuring they sought people’s consent prior to delivering care. People were encouraged to maintain their independence, care staff offered them choices about what they wanted to eat and drink. Care Staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements. People were supported by care staff to maintain their health.
People received care from care staff who took time to get to know them. People had developed good relationships with care staff who were caring. Care staff supported people to maintain their dignity and people were confident care staff respected their right to confidentiality.
The registered manager was respected by people and staff who used the service as she led by example. Complaints were investigated and lessons learned. People and their relative’s opinions on the quality of the service was sought through customer satisfaction surveys, so the provider use this information, share with care staff and develop the service. Quality checks were performed by the registered manager to monitor and improve the service.
People who lived there had been treated with dignity and respect.
We looked at care plans for three of the people who lived there. They covered a range of needs and had been reviewed regularly to ensure that staff had up to date information. There were also detailed assessments about the person's health so that staff could support people to keep healthy and well. All the staff we spoke with had knowledge of the needs of the people who lived there.
We saw that staff helped and supported people. A person who lived there told us that staff were: "Very caring and kind". We saw that people received care that met their individual needs.
We found that people lived in a clean environment and the provider had reduced the risk of the spread of infection.
The provider had listened to and acted upon people's complaints and comments.
We spoke to three people who used the service and one said, 'It is the best place to live'. Another person told us that the staff, 'Are all lovely'.
People who used the service and relatives gave us positive feedback about the standards of care and support that staff provided. One relative said, 'The level of care received is far above the expectations I had". We saw that people using the service were relaxed and comfortable within their environment and were receiving their personal care in a way that included their personal preferences.
Staff had access to further training which meant that staff had additional knowledge on how to meet the care and welfare needs of the people living there.
We saw that feedback was regularly sought from the families/carers of people living there, the people themselves, the staff working there and also from external agencies and professionals. This made sure that provider was able to maintain the standard of its care.