Archived: Rosebrook Court

Updated 6 October 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, looked at the overall quality of the service, and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 17 and 20 August 2018. It was unannounced. This was the first inspection for this provider at Rosebrook Court.

A single inspector carried out the inspection.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we had about the service, including notifications the provider sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with five people who received personal care services at Rosebrook Court and one visitor. We sent questionnaires to 15 people living at Rosebrook Court and received five returns.

We spoke with the provider’s branch manager, a care quality manager, a field care manager, and four members of staff. We also spoke with the housing provider’s on-site manager.

We looked at the care plans and associated records of four people. We reviewed other records, including the provider’s policies and procedures, quality and care plan review records, training and supervision records, medicine administration records, and recruitment records for two staff members.

Updated 6 October 2018

We inspected Rosebrook Court on 17 and 20 August 2018. Our inspection was unannounced. This was the first inspection for this provider at this location.

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist “extra care” housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is bought or rented and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

Not everyone living at Rosebrook Court received the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with “personal care”; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people who received personal care services from the provider.

At Rosebrook Court, the provider trades under the brand name, and is also known as, Allied Healthcare.

There was a registered manager employed to manage the service, but they were on maternity leave at the time of our 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.

The provider failed to meet the fundamental standards defined in regulations in five areas. The provider had policies and procedures designed to protect people from abuse and the risk of abuse, but these were not always followed, putting people at risk of avoidable harm. People were at risk of unsafe or inappropriate care because care plans did not always contain guidance on how to support people safely and medicines records were contradictory and poorly maintained. The provider did not deploy sufficient numbers of suitably skilled and experienced staff to support people safely and according to their care plans. People did not always receive care and support that met their needs and respected their preferences. The provider’s processes and procedures designed to make sure they met the requirements of regulations were not always operated effectively at Rosebrook Court. We identified breaches of regulation in these five areas. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the end of the full version of this report.

We also made a recommendation about mental capacity assessments and best interests decisions.

The provider had a robust recruitment process, and the necessary checks were made before new employees started work. Staff were aware of the steps they needed to take to protect people from the risk of infection.

People’s care plans were based on thorough assessments of their care needs and preferences. The provider took steps to make sure staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to support people according to their needs and preferences.

Individual staff members had developed caring relationships with the people they supported, but people did not find the provider to be caring as an organisation. People were involved in decisions about their care and support, and the provider took account of any individual communication needs to support them to do this. Staff respected people’s privacy, dignity and independence. Staff listened if people had complaints or concerns.

The provider worked in partnership with other agencies and listened to people who used the service to improve the standard of care people received.

This is the first time the service has been rated requires improvement.